10:00 AM

6:15-19338


Jesus Aguilar and Maria G Aguilar


Chapter 13


#1.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 138 West Magnolia Ave San Bernardino CA 92405


MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB


EH   


Docket 66

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Aguilar Represented By

Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria G Aguilar Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Movant(s):

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

Ashish R Rawat Dane W Exnowski Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-15119


Rodolfo Domingo Plado and Esmenia Rivera Plado


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4356 Camino San Miguel


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.


From: 12/4/18 EH   

Docket 49

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

12/4/2018

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes

The parties are to update the Court regarding any discussions regarding an APO. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rodolfo Domingo Plado Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Esmenia Rivera Plado Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A./Wells Fargo Represented By

Rosemary Allen Michelle Jones Nancy L Lee

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Rodolfo Domingo Plado and Esmenia Rivera Plado


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-13539


Albert Granados


Chapter 13


#3.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2752 Harrison St Riverside, CA 92503


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.

DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Albert Granados Represented By Jonathan D Doan

Movant(s):

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Mark S Krause

Erin M McCartney Dane W Exnowski

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Albert Granados


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-13649


Fernando Fabrigas, Sr. and Estela F. Fabrigas


Chapter 7


#4.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 231 Arden Street, Hemet, CA 92543


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


From: 7/31/18, 10/30/18 EH   

Docket 75

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/5/19 AT 10:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Fernando Fabrigas Sr. Represented By

R Creig Greaves Kevin Tang

Joint Debtor(s):

Estela F. Fabrigas Represented By

R Creig Greaves Kevin Tang

Movant(s):

FREEDOM MORTGAGE Represented By Jason C Kolbe Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

10:00 AM

CONT...


Fernando Fabrigas, Sr. and Estela F. Fabrigas

Rika Kido


Chapter 7

10:00 AM

6:17-18531


Victor Manuel Rosales


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 NISSAN Rogue Utility 4D SV 2WD I4


MOVANT: CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE


EH   


Docket 75

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/3/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Victor Manuel Rosales Represented By

D Justin Harelik

Movant(s):

Capital One Auto Finance, a division Represented By

Cheryl A Skigin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-18807


Malama Togia


Chapter 13


#6.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 17304 Birchtree St, Fontana, CA 92337


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR COOPER


EH   


Docket 59

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/10/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Malama Togia Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-19605


Victor Manuel Buelna and Adriana Alvizo


Chapter 13


#7.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 9728 Kempster Ave Fontana, CA 92335


MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.

DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Victor Manuel Buelna Represented By David Lozano

Joint Debtor(s):

Adriana Alvizo Represented By David Lozano

Movant(s):

LakeView Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By

Erin M McCartney

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Victor Manuel Buelna and Adriana Alvizo


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-12022


Maribel M Vasquez


Chapter 13


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Jeep Wrangler, VIN: 1C4BJWFG5GL132242


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.


EH   


Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maribel M Vasquez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-12027


Richard M. Thomas and Raquel Young


Chapter 7


#9.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Kia Optima, VIN: 5XXGM4A70DG168764


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK NA


Also #10 EH    

Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Richard M. Thomas and Raquel Young


Chapter 7

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

10:00 AM

6:18-12027


Richard M. Thomas and Raquel Young


Chapter 7


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Toyota Sienna, VIN: 5TDYK3DC6ES474400


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.


Also #9 EH   

Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Richard M. Thomas and Raquel Young


Chapter 7

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

10:00 AM

6:18-13481


Rorye James Mosley, Sr.


Chapter 13


#11.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 40015 Tinderbox Way, Murrieta, California 92562


MOVANT: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC


EH       


Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request for relief from

§ 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC Represented By

Diana Torres-Brito Asya Landa

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14725


Percylyn Agustin Basa


Chapter 13


#12.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14623 Meadowsweet Dr Eastvale, CA 92880


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR COOPER


EH   


Docket 56


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Percylyn Agustin Basa Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Angie M Marth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14761


Reginald D. Caldwell


Chapter 13


#13.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 34524 Devlin Dr, Beaumont, CA 92223


MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK


From: 12/4/18 EH   

Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

12/4/2018

Service: Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 3 and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Reginald D. Caldwell Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Movant(s):

MidFirst Bank Represented By Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16261


Joseph R. Hernandez


Chapter 13


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1541 Strawberry Drive, Perris, CA, 92571 UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 362.


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


EH   


Docket 26


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr Represented By

Dane W Exnowski John D Schlotter

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16489


Rebecca Moore


Chapter 13


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23093 Canyon Hills Drive, Corona, California 92883


MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(4) based on unauthorized transfer of interest and multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property, which the Court finds evidences a scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud Movant. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT relief from § 1301(a) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rebecca Moore Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By Jamie D Hanawalt Gilbert R Yabes

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Rebecca Moore


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17349


Thomas More Butler and Tamara Butler


Chapter 13


#16.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2005 Monterey Cruiser Boat & 2006 Trailrite Trailer


MOVANT: LBS FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for relief from § 1301(a) stay because the motion does not appear to have been served on any "co-debtor," as that term is used in the statute. GRANT requests under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Thomas More Butler Represented By

Stuart G Steingraber

Joint Debtor(s):

Tamara Butler Represented By

Stuart G Steingraber

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Thomas More Butler and Tamara Butler


Chapter 13

LBS Financial Credit Union Represented By Karel G Rocha

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17786


Brian Matthew Grosse and Maela Brillantes Grosse


Chapter 7


#17.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 HONDA ODYSSEY, VIN: 5FNR L5H4 5GB1 11285


MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 21


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brian Matthew Grosse Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Maela Brillantes Grosse Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Brian Matthew Grosse and Maela Brillantes Grosse

Vincent V Frounjian


Chapter 7

John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17995


Jingyi Luo


Chapter 13


#18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 10153 Green Street, Temple City, CA 91780


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS


CASE DISMISSED 10/9/18


EH   


Docket 16


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


On September 21, 2018, Jingyi Luo ("Debtor") filed a skeletal, pro se, Chapter 13 voluntary petition. The case was dismissed on October 9, 2018, for failure to file case commencement documents.


On December 13, 2018, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("Purchaser") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay (the "Annulment Motion"), requesting, in part, retroactive annulment of the automatic stay. Because the case was dismissed, the Court deems all Purchaser’s requests that are not retroactive or in rem in nature to be moot. The Court will also deny Purchaser’s request for in rem relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) because the instant motion was filed more than two months after the case was dismissed.


Regarding Purchaser’s request for annulment of the automatic stay, the following are the pertinent facts. Purchaser purchased the subject real property at a foreclosure sale held on September 24, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. According to the declaration of a manager

10:00 AM

CONT...


Jingyi Luo


Chapter 13

for the foreclosing trustee, the foreclosing trustee did not receive notice of the instant bankruptcy filing until nine minutes after the foreclosure sale began. Purchaser has also submitted a declaration stating that it did not have notice of the bankruptcy filing at the time of the foreclosure. Purchaser also asserts that the property has been the subject of twenty unauthorized transfers (nineteen of which occurred in 2015 or later) and nineteen bankruptcies affecting the property since April 2015. The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in this case, and notes that it does not appear either the foreclosing trustee or Purchaser was listed on the mailing list of creditors.


11 U.S.C. § 362(d) states:


(d) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided, under subsection (a) of this section such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or condition such stay –


(emphasis added); see also In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 573 (9th Cir. 1992) ("If a creditor obtains retroactive relief under section 362(d), there is no violation of the automatic stay, and whether violations of the stay are void or voidable is not at issue.").


The BAP, in In re Fjeldsted, noted the absence of a clear standard for annulment of the automatic stay. 293 B.R. 12, 21 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) ("There is less appellate clarity, however, in enunciating a test for retroactive stay relief. Inconsistent standards have thus developed, which run the gamut from such relief being justified only in ‘extreme circumstances’ to giving the court ‘wide latitude’ to ‘balance the equities’ on a case-by-case basis."). The BAP’s most recent announcement of the standard for annulment of the automatic stay stated the following:

10:00 AM

CONT...


Jingyi Luo

Determining whether cause exists to annul the stay is a case-by-case inquiry based on a balance of the equities. In conducting this inquiry the bankruptcy court, among other factors, should consider whether the creditor knew of the bankruptcy when violating the stay and whether the debtor’s conduct was unreasonable, inequitable or prejudicial to the creditor.


Chapter 13


In Fjeldsted, we approved additional factors for consideration in assessing the equities. The twelve nonexclusive factors are: (1) number of filings; (2) whether, in a repeat filing case, the circumstances indicate an intention to delay and hinder creditors; (3) a weighing of the extent of prejudice to creditors or third parties if the stay relief is not made retroactive, including whether harm exists to a bona fide purchaser; (4) the debtor’s overall good faith (totality of circumstances test); (5) whether creditors knew of stay but nonetheless took action, thus compounding the problem; (6) whether the debtor has complied, and is otherwise complying, with the Bankruptcy Code and Rules; (7) the relative ease of restoring parties to the status quo ante; (8) the costs of annulment to debtors and creditors; (9) how quickly creditors moved for annulment, or how quickly debtor moved to set aside the sale or violative conduct; (10) whether, after learning of the bankruptcy, creditors proceeded to take steps in continued violation of the stay, or whether they moved expeditiously to gain relief; (11) whether annulment of the stay will cause irreparable injury to the debtor; and (12) whether stay relief will promote judicial economy or other efficiencies. The Panel in Fjeldsted cautioned that the twelve factors are merely a framework for analysis and not a scorecard, and that in any given case, one factor may so outweigh the others as to be dispositive.


In re Estavan Capital LLC, 2015 WL 7758494 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted).


While Fjeldsted cautioned that the enumerated factors are not a scorecard, it is clear that the Fjeldsted factors weigh in favor of annulling the stay. Specifically, as is noted by Purchaser, this is the nineteenth bankruptcy affecting the property, and there have

10:00 AM

CONT...


Jingyi Luo


Chapter 13

been twenty unauthorized transfers affecting the property. Furthermore, the instant filing was a skeletal petition and Debtor took no further action to comply with the duties of a debtor in bankruptcy. Finally, there is no evidence that the foreclosing trustee or Purchaser were aware of the bankruptcy filing at the time of the foreclosure.


Given the history of bankruptcy filings and unauthorized transfers affecting the property, the timing of the filing in this case, Debtor’s non-fulfillment of her duties as a debtor in bankruptcy, and the absence of timely notice of the bankruptcy filing to the foreclosing trustee or Purchaser, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, annulling the automatic stay retroactive to the petition date.


Because Purchaser filed its motion after dismissal of the instant bankruptcy case, all substantive requests other than retroactive § 362(d)(1) relief are DENIED as moot. The Court is inclined to GRANT waiver of the Rule 4001(a)(3) stay.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jingyi Luo Pro Se

Movant(s):

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Represented By Darlene C Vigil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-18384


Kent Christian


Chapter 7


#19.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 40937 Lacroix Ave Murrieta CA 92562


MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC AND ITS SUCCESSORS


EH   


Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kent Christian Represented By David L Nelson

Movant(s):

PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By Christina J O

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-18617


Jose Antonio Ramos Torrelio


Chapter 7


#20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Lexus CT200H; VIN: JTHKD5BH6F2235298


MOVANT: AIR FORCE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 17


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Antonio Ramos Torrelio Represented By Kevin Tang

Movant(s):

Air Force Federal Credit Union Represented By

Bruce P. Needleman

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-18705


Dorina M. Meraz


Chapter 7


#21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2024 Domar Place, Oxnard, CA 93036


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dorina M. Meraz Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Movant(s):

Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Darlene C Vigil

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19015


Sheila Malone


Chapter 13


#22.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY Re: 33249 Newbury St, Yucaipa, CA 92399 UNDER 11 USC § 362


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK NA


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


Because the instant case was dismissed on November 13, 2018, the Court is inclined to CONFIRM that the automatic stay is not in effect and GRANT waiver of the Rule 4001(a) stay. Because the instant motion was filed sixteen days after the case was dismissed, the Court is inclined to DENY the remainder of the relief requested.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sheila Malone Pro Se

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By

Dane W Exnowski

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19401


Edwina Brewer


Chapter 7


#23.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3280 Stallion Street, Ontario, CA 91761


MOVANT: NUVISION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH       


Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion for lack of cause shown. While Movant indicates that there is a relatively small equity cushion on page 8 of the motion, Movant made a math error which resulted in the equity cushion being understated by

$100,000. As a result, it appears that Debtor actually has substantial equity in the subject real property. Additionally, the motion only indicates that there was a relatively small pre-petition delinquency; in fact, not a single postpetition payment had come due by the time the motion had been filed. Given that the equity cushion is approximately $157,000 and the delinquency is only $3,204.70, the Court concludes that Movant is adequately protected. Finally, Movant is the junior lienholder and does not appear to have served the senior lienholder as required by Local Rule 4001-1(c)(1) (C)(iv).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edwina Brewer Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Edwina Brewer


Chapter 7

NuVision Federal Credit Union Represented By Alana B Anaya

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19418


Vanessa Alexander


Chapter 13


#24.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4660 Rawhide Street, Montclair, CA 91763 UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 362


MOVANT: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


CASE DISMISSED 11/26/18


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


On November 5, 2018, Vanessa Alexander ("Debtor") filed a skeletal, pro se, Chapter 13 voluntary petition. The case was dismissed on November 26, 2018, for failure to file case commencement documents.


On December 10, 2018, Wilmington Trust, National Association ("Creditor") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay (the "Annulment Motion"), requesting, in part, retroactive annulment of the automatic stay. Because the case was dismissed, the Court deems all Creditor’s requests that are not retroactive or in rem in nature to be moot. The Court will also deny Creditor’s request for in rem relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) because the instant motion was filed after the case was dismissed.


Regarding Creditor’s request for annulment of the automatic stay, the following are the pertinent facts. Creditor asserts that it received a call from Legal Stop Sale Group at 12:08 p.m. on November 5, 2018, advising Creditor of a possible bankruptcy filing.

10:00 AM

CONT...


Vanessa Alexander


Chapter 13

Creditor states, however, that at that time it could not identify a bankruptcy filing affecting the property. The instant case was ultimately filed at 12:23 p.m.; three minutes later, the foreclosure was complete. Creditor asserts that Debtor was 119 months delinquent for a total delinquency of $283,676.06.


11 U.S.C. § 362(d) states:


(d) On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided, under subsection (a) of this section such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or condition such stay –


(emphasis added); see also In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 573 (9th Cir. 1992) ("If a creditor obtains retroactive relief under section 362(d), there is no violation of the automatic stay, and whether violations of the stay are void or voidable is not at issue.").


The BAP, in In re Fjeldsted, noted the absence of a clear standard for annulment of the automatic stay. 293 B.R. 12, 21 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) ("There is less appellate clarity, however, in enunciating a test for retroactive stay relief. Inconsistent standards have thus developed, which run the gamut from such relief being justified only in ‘extreme circumstances’ to giving the court ‘wide latitude’ to ‘balance the equities’ on a case-by-case basis."). The BAP’s most recent announcement of the standard for annulment of the automatic stay stated the following:


Determining whether cause exists to annul the stay is a case-by-case inquiry based on a balance of the equities. In conducting this inquiry the bankruptcy court, among other factors, should consider whether the creditor knew of the bankruptcy when violating the stay and whether the debtor’s conduct was

10:00 AM

CONT...


Vanessa Alexander

unreasonable, inequitable or prejudicial to the creditor.


Chapter 13


In Fjeldsted, we approved additional factors for consideration in assessing the equities. The twelve nonexclusive factors are: (1) number of filings; (2) whether, in a repeat filing case, the circumstances indicate an intention to delay and hinder creditors; (3) a weighing of the extent of prejudice to creditors or third parties if the stay relief is not made retroactive, including whether harm exists to a bona fide purchaser; (4) the debtor’s overall good faith (totality of circumstances test); (5) whether creditors knew of stay but nonetheless took action, thus compounding the problem; (6) whether the debtor has complied, and is otherwise complying, with the Bankruptcy Code and Rules; (7) the relative ease of restoring parties to the status quo ante; (8) the costs of annulment to debtors and creditors; (9) how quickly creditors moved for annulment, or how quickly debtor moved to set aside the sale or violative conduct; (10) whether, after learning of the bankruptcy, creditors proceeded to take steps in continued violation of the stay, or whether they moved expeditiously to gain relief; (11) whether annulment of the stay will cause irreparable injury to the debtor; and (12) whether stay relief will promote judicial economy or other efficiencies. The Panel in Fjeldsted cautioned that the twelve factors are merely a framework for analysis and not a scorecard, and that in any given case, one factor may so outweigh the others as to be dispositive.


In re Estavan Capital LLC, 2015 WL 7758494 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted).


While Fjeldsted cautioned that the enumerated factors are not a scorecard, the Fjeldsted factors weigh in favor of annulling the stay here. Specifically, as is noted by Creditor, Debtor filed a skeletal, pro se, Chapter 13 bankruptcy three minutes prior to the completion of the foreclosure sale, and, subsequently, made no effort to comply with the duties of a debtor in bankruptcy. Additionally, at the time of the foreclosure Debtor was 119 months delinquent on Creditor’s claim. Given the apparent bad faith of Debtor, as is evidenced by the timing of the instant filing and the failure to made

10:00 AM

CONT...


Vanessa Alexander


Chapter 13

any effort to maintain the instant bankruptcy case, the Court concludes that annulment of the automatic stay, including the co-debtor stay, is warranted in this situation.


Because Purchaser filed its motion after dismissal of the instant bankruptcy case, all substantive requests other than retroactive § 362(d)(1) relief are DENIED as moot. The Court is inclined to GRANT waiver of the Rule 4001(a)(3) stay.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vanessa Alexander Pro Se

Movant(s):

Wilmington Trust, National Represented By John D Schlotter

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19437


Toni Elizabeth Prima - Zuvich


Chapter 13


#25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1055 E Paseo El Mirador, Palm Springs, CA 92262


MOVANT: FINANCE OF AMERICA REVERSE LLC


EH   


Docket 20

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/11/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Toni Elizabeth Prima - Zuvich Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Movant(s):

Finance of America Reverse LLC, Represented By

Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19449


Gary Leigh Lewis


Chapter 7


#26.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Heartland, Torque F396 VIN 5SFCG4331HE325547


MOVANT: BANK OF THE WEST


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary Leigh Lewis Represented By

Stuart G Steingraber

Movant(s):

Bank of the West Represented By Bonni S Mantovani

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19463


Christopher P. Adams and Donisha R. Adams


Chapter 7


#27.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Ford Fusion, VIN: 3FA6P0PU5HR379464


MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


EH       


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Christopher P. Adams Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Joint Debtor(s):

Donisha R. Adams Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Movant(s):

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Christopher P. Adams and Donisha R. Adams


Chapter 7

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19504


Norma Jordana Moreno


Chapter 7


#28.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 BMW 3 Series Sedan 4D 330xi AWD


MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST


EH       


Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

  1. and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Norma Jordana Moreno Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By

    Cheryl A Skigin

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19563


    Danae Alana Solario


    Chapter 7


    #29.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Mercedes-Benz CLA250C, VIN WDDSJ4EBXJN514942


    MOVANT: DAIMLER TRUST


    EH    


    Docket 7


    Tentative Ruling:

    1/8/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Danae Alana Solario Represented By Priscilla C Solario

    Movant(s):

    Daimler Trust Represented By

    Jennifer H Wang

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19959


    Jose Luis Vallejo


    Chapter 13


    #30.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14552 Emerald Canyon Ct, Corona, CA 92880


    MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


    CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18


    EH   


    Docket 10


    Tentative Ruling:

    1/8/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(4) based on multiple skeletal filings affecting the property and multiple unauthorized transfers of a fractionalized interest in the property in the last six months. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 10. DENY requests under ¶¶ 8 and 11 for lack of cause shown.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose Luis Vallejo Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Nancy L Lee

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Jose Luis Vallejo


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20413


    Jose Ramon Castaneda


    Chapter 13


    #31.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 1500


    MOVANT: JOSE RAMON CASTANEDA


    EH   


    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    1/8/19


    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion for lack of cause shown. Specifically, the evidence submitted in support of the request for relief is not sufficiently "clear and convincing" as to overcome the statutory presumption that the case was not filed in good faith.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose Ramon Castaneda Represented By Andrew Moher

    Movant(s):

    Jose Ramon Castaneda Represented By Andrew Moher Andrew Moher

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20539


    Jimmie Dale Montezuma and Jovita Arzate Montezuma


    Chapter 7


    #32.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 3440 East 4th St #1051 Ontario, CA 91764


    MOVANT: SJC II/FOURTH AND HAVEN LLC


    EH   


    Docket 8

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

    1/4/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jimmie Dale Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Jovita Arzate Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

    Movant(s):

    Todd Brisco Represented By

    Todd A Brisco

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01112 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Source Medical Billing &


    #33.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Source Medical Billing & Collection, Inc, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer))


    From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    Source Medical Billing & Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Steven Werth


    Chapter 11

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #34.00 Application for Compensation for Nicholas W Gebelt, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/26/2018 to 11/21/2018, Fee: $31,465.00, Expenses: $673.89.


    EH   


    Docket 95

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/29/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

  2. Requiring Status Report EH       

Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


DISCUSSION


The De Leon Defendants assert that the one-year statute of limitations period under California Civil Procedure Code § 340.6 applies to the claims brought against the De Leon Defendants in the Complaint, and on that basis argue that the claims are time-barred.


Judgment on the Pleadings

"Judgment on the pleadings is proper when, taking all allegations in the pleadings as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I.

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 360 (9th Cir.2005). In other words, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is evaluated under the same standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), and dismissal pursuant to Civil Rule 12(c) is inappropriate if the facts as pled would entitle the plaintiff to a remedy. Merchs. Home Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.1995).


In ruling on a motion for a judgment on the pleadings, the bankruptcy court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations. See W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.1981). In addition, the court does not have to accept as true conclusory allegations that contradict facts that may be judicially noticed or that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint. See, e.g., Steckman v. Hart Brewing Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295–96 (9th Cir.1998).


The bankruptcy court may dispose of a case under Civil Rule 12 by reference to documents "whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions" without treating the motion as one for summary judgment. Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F .3d 699, 705–06 (9th Cir.1998).


Finally, when considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the bankruptcy court "may consider facts that ‘are contained in materials of which the court may take judicial notice.’" Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n. 18 (9th Cir.1999); see also MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F .2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.1986) (court may take judicial notice of "matters of public record" without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment).


Application of Section 340.6

Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 340.6(a)) provides: "An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission. "


The De Leon Defendants argue that §340.6 applies when, as here, the acts of the attorneys which are alleged to be improper depend upon a showing that the attorneys breached their professional obligations.

2:00 PM

CONT... John E. Tackett Chapter 7

The Court agrees with the parties that the resolution to this issue turns on the

Court’s examination of the facts of this case, in light of Lee v. Hanley, 61 Cal. 4th 1225, 1229, 354 P.3d 334, 336 (2015) (holding that § 340.6 did not bar plaintiff's fee dispute claim that attorney refused to return unearned attorney's fees, because the claim could also be construed as conversion), and ESG Capital Partners, LP v.

Stratos, 828 F.3d 1023, 1036 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that one-year statute of limitations for conduct falling within scope of legal services applied only to breach of fiduciary duty claim). In ESG, the Ninth Circuit explained the scope of § 340.6, as set forth by the Supreme Court of California as follows:


The California Supreme Court has explained that § 340.6 does not apply merely because an attorney's alleged misconduct "occurs during the period of legal representation or because the representation brought the parties together and thus provided the attorney the opportunity to engage in the misconduct." … The court in Lee recognized that attorneys often have the same obligations as nonattorneys and explained that the question is "not simply whether a claim alleges misconduct that entails the violation of a professional obligation.

Rather, the question is whether the claim, in order to succeed, necessarily depends on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation."

ESG, F.3d at 1023, 1036 (internal citations omitted).

ESG, in turn, considered whether claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition "necessarily depend on proof that [the attorneys] violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services." Id. at 1037. The Ninth Circuit considered each claim and whether the claims necessarily involved the violation of a professional obligation before determining that only the breach of fiduciary duty claim was subject to the one-year statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit also indicated that it was not dispositive whether the claims arise from the attorney-client relationship itself. Here, the state law claims asserted against the De Leon Defendants are the Eighth Claim for Relief (damages for sale of unqualified securities), the Ninth Claim for Relief (rescission: securities: misrepresentation), and the Tenth Claim for Relief (damages: securities: misrepresentation).


Here, the De Leon Defendants assert that the state law claims must be time barred because they "are based entirety on the De Leon Defendants’ performance of professional services for their client, Conestoga … and that they provided material assistance through structuring the transactions for Conestoga." (Mot. at 6:9-14).

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

However, the De Leon Defendants ignore that the Complaint goes further than alleging mere preparation of documents and furnishing of professional services. The Complaint alleges that beyond simply structuring the transactions, that the De Leon Defendants knew Conestoga’s practice was to sell unregistered securities through unregistered agents and knew that the victims would be induced to sign disclosures concerning accredited-investor status, and finally, that the De Leon Defendants conspired with Conestoga to facilitate non-accredited investors signing the documents. (Compl. at ¶¶ 112, 118, and 125). A review of the California Corporation codes at issue underscore that the claims asserted by the Trustee provide relief related to the unlawful sale of securities based on misrepresentations. That the services provided by the De Leon Defendants were legal in nature are not dispositive because the claims themselves do not necessarily depend on proof that the De Leon Defendants violated a professional obligation. Instead, the securities claims asserted by the Trustee are focused on the misrepresentations related to the sale of securities, and the allegations of the Complaint appear to also focus on the De Leon Defendants’ knowledge that misrepresentations were made, as well as their alleged conspiratorial relationship with Conestoga in structuring the life settlement contracts. Absent from the Motion is any analysis of the actual claims asserted by the Trustee and discussion of whether the claims depend upon a showing that an attorney violated a professional obligation.


TENTATIVE RULING


For the foregoing reasons, finding that the Trustee’s claims do not fall within California’s § 340.6 statute of limitations, the Court is inclined to DENY the Motion in its entirety. The Court need not determine at this time when the applicable statute of limitations under the California Corporations Code began to run as to the Debtors and declines to do so.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

John E. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

Defendant(s):

Michael McDermott Pro Se

Michael Woods Pro Se

Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Thomas Washburn Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Jeff Converse Pro Se

Provident Trust Group, LLC Represented By Marshall J Hogan

Conestoga Trust Represented By Charles Miller

Conestoga International Holdings, Represented By

Charles Miller

Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC Represented By

Charles Miller

De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Joint Debtor(s):

Ellen O. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Movant(s):

De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Thomas Washburn Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Jasmin Yang David D Samani


Chapter 7

Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Plaintiff(s):

Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:16-15813


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01138 Speier v. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC et al


#31.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01138. Complaint by Steven M Speier against Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC, Conestoga International Holdings, LLC, Conestoga Trust, Provident Trust Group, LLC, De Leon & Washburh, P.C., Thomas Washburn, Hector De Leon, Jeff Converse, Michael Woods, Michael McDermott. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Rescission and Restitution for Fraud; (3) Money Had and Received; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Fraud; (6) Negligent Representation; (7) Negligence; (8) Rescission and Restitution for Sale of Unqualified Securities [Cal. Corp. §25503]; (9) Damages for Sale of Unqualified Securities [Cal. Corp. §25503]; (10) Rescission: Securities: Misrepresentation [Cal. Corp. §25501]; (11) Damages: Securities: Misrepresentation [Cal. Corp. § 25501]; (12) Contempt for Willful Violation of Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11

U.S.C. § 105; and (13) Elder Financial Abuse [Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.] Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Eastmond, Thomas)


From: 8/29/18, 11/28/18 Also #30

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John E. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Defendant(s):

Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Charles Miller


Chapter 7

Conestoga International Holdings, Represented By

Charles Miller

Conestoga Trust Represented By Charles Miller

Provident Trust Group, LLC Represented By Marshall J Hogan

De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Thomas Washburn Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Jeff Converse Pro Se

Michael Woods Pro Se

Michael McDermott Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Ellen O. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Plaintiff(s):

Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Thomas J Eastmond


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:16-13096


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01219 Candee et al v. Ayoub et al


#32.00 Motion For Summary Judgment Also #33

EH       


Docket 21


Tentative Ruling:

01/09/2019

BACKGROUND

On April 6, 2016, Tarek and Gabriela Ayoub (collectively, "Debtors") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On April 12, 2016, Debtors’ case was dismissed for failure to file initial petition documents. On April 13, 2016, Debtors filed a motion to vacate dismissal; that motion was granted on April 15, 2016. On May 4, 2016, Debtors’ case was again dismissed for failure to file schedules, statements, and/or plan. Two days later, Debtors filed a second motion to vacate dismissal; on May 26, 2016, the second motion to vacate dismissal was granted. On October 27, 2016, the Debtors moved to convert their case to a case under chapter 7. The case was converted on October 31, 2016. Among the creditors of the Debtors’ estate are Keith Candee and Original Thurber Ranch, LLC (collectively, "Candee Parties" or "Plaintiffs").


On August 26, 2016, the Candee Parties filed a complaint to determine dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) ("Complaint"). The Complaint generally alleges that the Candee Parties held validly recorded easements which burdened the Debtors’ property. The Complaint further alleges that despite their knowledge of the validity of the easements, the Debtors interfered with the Candee Parties’ use of the easements, trespassed on the Plaintiffs’ property, committed unlawful acts of violence, threatened the Plaintiffs, and placed a fence to attempt to exercise domain over the disputed property.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7


On June 10, 2015, the Superior Court of California in the County of Riverside (the "State Court") rendered Judgment ("Judgment") in favor of the Plaintiffs in the state court action entitled Gabriela Ayoub v. Keith H. Candee and related cross-action, Case No. MCC1301436 (the "State Court Action"). The Debtors both participated in the State Court Action and were represented by counsel. The State Court’s Judgment was supported by a statement of decision setting forth its factual findings and conclusions of law (the "Decision"). The Decision makes clear that the grounds for damages was based on findings that the Debtors committed intentional torts of conversion, trespass, and private nuisance interfering with easements.


On November 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion"). The Debtors filed their response on December 19, 2018 ("Response"), and the Plaintiffs filed their reply to the Response on December 26, 2018 ("Reply").


DISCUSSION

Issue preclusion may provide a proper basis for granting summary judgment.

San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. San Francisco City and Cnty., 364 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir.2004). To meet its burden on a motion for summary judgment based on issue preclusion, the proponent must have pinpointed the exact issues litigated in the prior action and introduced a record establishing the controlling facts. Honkanen v. Hopper (In re Honkanen), 446 B.R. 373, 382 (9th Cir. BAP2011); Kelly v. Okoye (In re Kelly), 182 B.R. 255, 258 (9th Cir. BAP1995).


Issue preclusion may apply in bankruptcy discharge proceedings. Grogan v.

Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284 (1991). The preclusive effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent federal lawsuit generally is determined by the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which provides that state judicial proceedings "shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State ... from which they are taken." Marrese v. Am.

Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380 (1985). When state preclusion law controls, the decision to apply the doctrine is made in accordance with state law. Khaligh v. Hadegh (In re Khaligh), 338 B.R. 817, 823 (9th Cir. BAP2006), aff'd, 506 F.3d 956 (9th Cir.2007).

2:00 PM

CONT...


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub

Under California law, the party asserting issue preclusion has the burden of


Chapter 7

establishing the following threshold requirements:


  1. The issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be the identical issue to that decided in a former proceeding;


  2. This issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding;


  3. It must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding;


  4. The decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits; and


  5. The party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same party

as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding.


Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Lucindo v.Super. Ct., 795 P.2d 1223, 1225 (Cal.1990))(emphasis added). These are known as the "Harmon " factors. But even if these five requirements are met, application of issue preclusion under California law requires a "mandatory ‘additional’ inquiry into whether imposition of issue preclusion would be fair and consistent with sound public policy." Khaligh, 338 B.R. at 824–25. "The purposes of the doctrine are to promote judicial economy by minimizing repetitive litigation, preventing inconsistent judgments which undermine the integrity of the judicial system and to protect against vexatious litigation." Younan v. Caruso, 51 Cal.App. 4th 401, 407 (1996).


  1. WILLFUL INJURY (State of Mind)

    To show that a debtor's conduct is willful requires proof that the debtor deliberately or intentionally injured the creditor, and that in doing so, the debtor intended the consequences of his act, not just the act itself. Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 60–61 (1998); Carrillo v. Su (In re Su), 290 F.3d 1140, 1143 (9th Cir.2002).

    The debtor must act with a subjective motive to inflict injury, or with a belief that injury is substantially certain to result from the conduct. In re Su, 290 F.3d at 1143. "Debts arising from recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the compass of § 523(a)(6)." Plyam at 463 (quoting Kawaauhau v. Geiger)(emphasis added).

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


    Chapter 7


    Here, Exhibit 2 to the Motion contains the Decisions of the State Court. In that decision, the State Court Judge specifically determined that the Debtors committed intentional torts with malice and oppression towards Candee. The Decision goes on to state that the torts, which acts are detailed in the Decision itself, were committed with the specific "intent to cause injury to Candee". (Lieberg Decl. at Ex. 2, p 030, ¶ 49). It was further determined by the State Court that the damages awarded to Candee were reasonably related to the injury and harm caused by Debtors. Here, based on the Court’s review of the State Court Decision and the Complaint filed in connection with the Debtors’ bankruptcy, the Court finds that:


    Additionally, as required by California law, the Court has considered whether application of issue preclusion is fair and consistent with sound public policy and answers this question in the affirmative. The Debtors have advanced no argument that

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


    Chapter 7

    would justify setting aside the carefully considered findings of the State Court when they had a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues in the State Court Action. The Debtors’ currently pending action against their prior counsel for malpractice is insufficient to disturb the requirement that the Court afford full faith and credit to the State Court’s Judgment. Indeed, should the Debtors prevail in their action they shall have remedies available to them as against their prior counsel. Issue preclusion is appropriate as to the issue of "willfulness" and the Court finds willfulness for purposes of § 523(a)(6) has been established.


  2. MALICIOUS INJURY

    For conduct to be malicious, the creditor must prove that the debtor: (1) committed a wrongful act; (2) done intentionally; (3) which necessarily causes injury; and (4) was done without just cause or excuse. In re Su, 290 F.3d at 1143.


    Here, the Decision amply supports a finding that the Debtors actions were committed wrongfully, that they were done intentionally, that they caused injury to Candee, and that they were done without just cause or excuse. Indeed, the State Court found expressly that the Debtors committed various wrongful acts in an attempt to injure Plaintiff Candee and that their testimony at the trial was not credible. Having reviewed, the Decision in its entirety, the Court concludes that the Judgment resolved the issue of maliciousness and that for the reasons stated above with respect to the willfulness analysis, that the requirements for application of collateral estoppel are met regarding this issue. Issue preclusion is appropriate as to the issue of "malicious injury" and the Court finds that malice for purposes of § 523(a)(6) has been established.


  3. DEBTOR OPPOSITION

The Debtors dispute the validity of the Judgment. However, their stated rationale that their prior counsel’s signature on the Judgment renders it invalid because they have asserted a malpractice suit against her is insufficient as a matter of law. There is no legal argument or case presented to support a finding that the malpractice action would have any impact on the finality of the State Court’s Judgment. To the contrary, the Court concurs with the Plaintiffs that the Judgment became final when the Court of Appeals made its ruling and after the time for appeal of the Court of Appeals’ ruling lapsed. Next, the Debtors attempt to excise Gabriela

2:00 PM

CONT...


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7

Ayoub from the Decision. However, although the majority of findings regard Tarek Ayoub’s wrongful acts, the Decision is clear that the State Court considered the Debtors to be acting in concert and as such, it makes repeated reference to the acts of the "Ayoub Parties" defined as including both Gabriela and Tarek Ayoub. Thus, the Debtors’ argument that the Decision makes insufficient findings regarding Gabriela Ayoub is unavailing. Finally, the Debtors raise issues related to the Plaintiffs’ forced sale of the Debtors’ residence, however, these issues do not implicate or raise any cognizable basis to deny the motion which narrowly seeks a judgment declaring the State Court Judgment nondischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(6).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court’s tentative ruling is to GRANT summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tarek El Sayed Ayoub Represented By Sherif Fathy

Defendant(s):

Tarek El Sayed Ayoub Represented By Todd L Turoci

Gabriela VIlleda Ayoub Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Gabriela Villeda Ayoub Represented By Sherif Fathy

2:00 PM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7

Keith H Candee Represented By Jon H Lieberg

Original Thurber Ranch LLC Represented By Jon H Lieberg

Plaintiff(s):

Keith H Candee Represented By Jon H Lieberg

Original Thurber Ranch LLC Represented By Jon H Lieberg

Trustee(s):

Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons

2:00 PM

6:16-13096


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01219 Candee et al v. Ayoub et al


#33.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by Keith H Candee, Original Thurber Ranch LLC against Tarek El Sayed Ayoub, Gabriela VIlleda Ayoub


From: 11/1/16, 6/7/17, 1/24/18, 1/31/18, 10/24/18


Also #32 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tarek El Sayed Ayoub Represented By Sherif Fathy

Defendant(s):

Tarek El Sayed Ayoub Represented By Todd L Turoci

Gabriela VIlleda Ayoub Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Gabriela Villeda Ayoub Represented By Sherif Fathy

Plaintiff(s):

Keith H Candee Represented By Jon H Lieberg

2:00 PM

CONT...


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7

Original Thurber Ranch LLC Represented By Jon H Lieberg

Trustee(s):

Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons

11:00 AM

6:18-14867


Richard Cornelius


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:18-01178 United States Of America v. Cornelius


#1.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01178. Complaint by United States Of America against Richard Cornelius. (Fee Not Required).

Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Levey, Elan)


From: 11/15/18 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR JUDGMENT FILED 12/20/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard Cornelius Represented By Paul Y Lee

Defendant(s):

Richard Cornelius Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Naomi Rodriguez-Cornelius Represented By Paul Y Lee

Plaintiff(s):

United States Of America Represented By Elan S Levey

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-20473


Felipe Gerardo


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:18-01225 Turoci et al v. Cuevas jr. et al


#2.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding EH   

Docket 4

Tentative Ruling:

1/10/19

BACKGROUND


On December 22, 2017, Felipe Gerardo ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On March 6, 2018, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On November 16, 2018, Todd Turoci & Luis Torres (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an adversary complaint against Jamie Alberto Cuevas Jr., Gloria Valenzuela, Wagner Segura, and the Law Offices of Jamie A. Cuevas Jr. Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") for (1) tortious interference with business relations; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations; (4) violations of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et. seq.; and (5) slander per se.


On December 12, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to FED. R. CIV.

P. Rule 12(b)(1), (6)1, incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7012. Defendants argue that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and also assert that Plaintiffs committed fraud on the Court and should be sanctioned. On December 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Felipe Gerardo


Chapter 13


DISCUSSION



  1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction


    Prior to considering the merits of a complaint, this Court has an independent obligation to consider whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-95 (1998). If the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). As conceded by Plaintiffs, the burden of demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction rests with Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Plaintiffs have clearly failed to carry that burden.


    Defendants have taken the unusual, although not necessarily inappropriate, approach of primarily focusing on the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts generally, rather than the more limited jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts. As noted by Defendants, the Constitution outlines the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts. See U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. The primary categories of jurisdiction are commonly referred to as "federal question" and "diversity of citizenship."


    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332 provides further guidance to federal courts jurisdiction over "federal questions" and cases involving "diversity of citizenship." Because it appears that all individuals subject to this litigation are citizens of California, or at least that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden in demonstrating otherwise, there is no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Because none of the claims arise under federal law, there is no federal jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. While the Court is skeptical that it would be appropriate to find supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 in this adversary proceeding, the Court will assume, arguendo, that such jurisdiction exists and consider the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Felipe Gerardo


    Chapter 13


    28 U.S.C. § 157 provides for four categories of cases which the district court may refer to the bankruptcy court: (1) cases under title 11; (2) proceedings arising under title 11; (3) proceedings arising in a case under title 11; and (4) proceedings related to a case under title 11. See, e.g., In re S&M Constructors, Inc., 144 B.R. 855, 858 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1992). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) divides matters into core and non-core proceedings.


    The first category, cases under title 11, refers to the bankruptcy case commenced by the filing of the petition. See, e.g., In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir. 1987). This category is inapplicable here, as the matter at issue is an adversary proceeding.


    The second category, proceedings arising under title 11, refers to those actions that are expressly created by title 11. See, e.g., In re Wolverine Radio Co., Inc., 930 F.2d 1132, 1141, n.14 (6th Cir. 1991). This category is inapplicable here – the adversary proceeding is premised upon state law claims.


    The third category2, proceedings arising in a case under title 11, refers to claims that, although not created by title 11, would have no existence absent the bankruptcy, such as administrative matters. See, e.g., In re Repository Techs., Inc., 601 F.3d 710, 719 (7th Cir. 2010). This category is inapplicable here.


    The fourth category, proceedings related to a case under title 11, contains two different subsets: (1) causes of action owned by the debtor that become property of the estate under § 541; and (2) suits between third parties which in one way or another affect the administration of the bankruptcy case. Id. It is only the latter category that is potentially invoked by this proceeding.


    The primary test for related to jurisdiction is the Third Circuit’s Pacor test:

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Felipe Gerardo


    Chapter 13


    The usual articulation of the test for determining whether a civil proceeding is related to bankruptcy is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.

    Thus, the proceeding need not necessarily be against the debtor or against the debtor’s property. An action is related to bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action . . . and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate.


    Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rd Cir. 1984). The Supreme Court previously acknowledged the prevalence of the Pacor test:


    In attempting to strike an appropriate balance, the Third Circuit in Pacor, Inc.

    v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (1984), devised the following test for determining the existence of "related to" jurisdiction:


    [Excerpt quoted above] . . .


    The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have adopted the Pacor test with little or no variation. The Second and Seventh Circuits, on the other hand, seem to have adopted a slightly different test. But whatever test is used, these cases make clear that bankruptcy courts have no jurisdiction over proceedings that have no effect on the estate of the debtor.


    Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 308 n.6 (1995) (citations omitted).


    The Ninth Circuit has recently reiterated its approval of the Pacor test for pre- confirmation matters:

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Felipe Gerardo


    Chapter 13


    The test for post-confirmation "related to" jurisdiction was modified from the seminal pre-confirmation Pacor test for "related to" jurisdiction, which had been previously adopted by the Ninth Circuit in In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988). Surveying the courts that had applied a limited version of the Pacor test in the post-confirmation context, we recognized that the Pacor test of whether the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy . . . If the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action . . . and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankruptcy estate was somewhat overbroad in the post-confirmation context.


    In re Wilshire Courtyard, 729 F.3d 1279, 1287 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations and quotations omitted).


    Here, the instant adversary proceeding does not have an "effect on the administration of the estate," as that phrase is defined by caselaw, because this action could not "alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action." Pacor, Inc. at 994. The instant adversary proceeding simply has no effect on Debtor whatsoever, and, as a result, is not related to the bankruptcy case under the Pacor test, let alone the more stringent post-confirmation test, the "close nexus" test, which requires that the action affect the interpretation, implementation, consummation, execution, or administration of the confirmed plan. See In re Wilshire Courtyard, 729 F.3d 1279, 1287 (9th Cir.

    2013) (citing In re Pegasus Gold Corp., 394 F.3d 1189, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2005)).


    In its opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs raise, explicitly or implicitly, three arguments in support of their content that subject matter jurisdiction. First, to the extent that Plaintiffs argue that this adversary proceeding arises under title 11, such an argument is incorrect. A case arising under title 11 refers to those action which are expressly created by title 11. See, e.g., In re Wolverine Radio Co., Inc., 930 F.2d 1132, 1141 n.14 (6th Cir. 1991). None of the claims brought by Plaintiffs are expressly created by title 11. Second, Plaintiffs argue that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the action affects the administration of Debtor’s estate and is, therefore, related to a case arising under title 11. For the reasons stated in the above

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Felipe Gerardo


    Chapter 13

    paragraph, the Court rejects this interpretation of related-to jurisdiction.


    Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the Court has inherent jurisdiction over attorneys, citing Local Bankruptcy Rule 2090-2 in support of that contention. While it is true that the Court has jurisdiction over the employment of attorneys in bankruptcy cases, and possesses the jurisdiction to order certain coercive sanctions, the instant adversary proceeding simply does not fall within such jurisdiction. This action is a lawsuit between two attorneys. The fact that those attorneys practice in this Court does not provide the Court with jurisdiction to resolve their litigation over a business dispute which does not affect the bankruptcy case. Therefore, the Court is inclined to dismiss the action pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(1).


  2. Fraud on the Court


In its motion to dismiss the complaint, Defendants request that the Court sanction Plaintiffs pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) for committing fraud on the court.


11 U.S.C. § 105(a) states:


  1. The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.


The Ninth Circuit in Dyer stated that "[c]ivil contempt authority allows a court to remedy a violation of a specific order." 322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir. 2003). This Court has in the past, however, expressed skepticism that Dyer intended to limit the Court’s § 105(a) power to only remedying violations of specific court orders because

11:00 AM

CONT...


Felipe Gerardo


Chapter 13

of the following.


The Supreme Court, on two occasions after Dyer, has written an opinion which indicates that § 105 is not strictly limited to correcting violations of specific court orders. First, in Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., the Supreme Court wrote:


On the contrary, the broad authority granted to bankruptcy judges to take any action that is necessary or appropriate to prevent an abuse of process described in § 105(a) of the Code, is surely adequate to authorize an immediate denial of a motion to convert filed under § 706 in lieu of a conversion order that merely postpones the allowance of equivalent relief and may provide a debtor with an opportunity to take action prejudicial to creditors.


549 U.S. 365, 375 (2007) (footnote omitted). The "abuse of process" referenced in Marrama was not a violation of a specific court order, but, rather, "an unmeritorious attempt to qualify as a debtor under Chapter 13." Id.


Second, in Law v. Siegel, the Supreme Court stated: "Section 105(a) confers authority to ‘carry out’ the provisions of the Code." This statement is natural, since the first sentence of § 105(a) states: "[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title."


Here, Defendants have not pointed to a specific and definite court order that has been violated. Nevertheless, the reconciliation of Dyer and Marrama helps illustrate the proper approach forward. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s instructions that sanctions under § 105(a) are appropriate for violation of a specific and definite court order is derived from the non-bankruptcy standard for civil contempt. See F.T.C. v.

Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Stone v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992)) ("The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply."). Nevertheless, as illustrated by Marrama, the

11:00 AM

CONT...


Felipe Gerardo


Chapter 13

Court’s authority under § 105(a) is not strictly limited to issuing sanctions for civil contempt.


Here, however, Defendants are requesting sanctions pursuant to § 105(a). The Court is not persuaded that § 105(a) is the appropriate mechanism for Defendants’ request.

Therefore, the Court is inclined to deny Defendants request without prejudice to Defendants ability to renew the request, or file a separate motion under a different legal provision, requesting sanctions for the conduct described in the motion.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(1). The Court is inclined to DENY Defendants’ request for sanctions without prejudice.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Felipe Gerardo Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Defendant(s):

Jamie Alberto Cuevas jr. Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

Gloria Valenzuela Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

Wagner Segura Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

11:00 AM

CONT...


Felipe Gerardo


Chapter 13

The Law Offices of Jamie A. Cuevas Represented By

Nicholas W Gebelt

Movant(s):

Jamie Alberto Cuevas jr. Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

Gloria Valenzuela Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

Wagner Segura Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

The Law Offices of Jamie A. Cuevas Represented By

Nicholas W Gebelt

Plaintiff(s):

Todd Turoci Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Luis G. Torres Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-24888


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13


#3.00 Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Bankruptcy Case EH       

Docket 72

Tentative Ruling:

1/10/19

BACKGROUND


On December 12, 2014, Jesus Simental ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On February 26, 2015, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On May 31, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to submit tax returns or refunds. Debtor did not file an opposition to the motion. After a continuance, no appearance was made on behalf of Debtor at the continued hearing on the motion to dismiss, and the case was dismissed on November 8, 2018.


On November 26, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to vacate the dismissal order on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect. On November 27, 2018, Trustee filed comments indicating disapproval, although the comments could also be characterized as recommending conditional approval. On December 3, 2018, Debtor set the matter for hearing and, on December 4, 2018, Debtor filed a supplemental declaration.


DISCUSSION

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13


Debtor relies on FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, which allows for relief from an order based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."


The legal basis for Debtor’s assertion that the dismissal order should be vacated is that Debtor’s counsel inadvertently did not appear at the hearing due to an office error. It is well established, however, that "an attorney’s ignorance and carelessness does not provide grounds for Rule 60(b) relief." In re Mercado, 144 B.R. 879, 886 (Bankr.

C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972). And the mere assertion that counsel did not fulfill its duties, but that such carelessness was inadvertent, is clearly inadequate to support Rule 60(b) relief. See, e.g., In re ACME Motors, Inc., 125 B.R. 702, 703 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1991).


"Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary." Id. Yet, in this Court, a request for relief from a Chapter 13 dismissal order has become ordinary. On occasion, the requests are legally sound. Here, however, the evidence provided simply indicates that Debtor’s counsel did not attend the hearing due to an internal error.


The Supreme Court has stated that:


There is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner’s claim because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent.


Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962). See also Bakery Mach. &

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13

Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009) ("[T] he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds. The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does not present exceptional circumstances."). "Although attorney carelessness can [in certain circumstances] constitute ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney’s somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion conditioned on compliance with the Trustee’s conditions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

Movant(s):

Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-10619


Scott Patrick Williams and Lisa Ann Williams


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments with Declaration of Scott Patrick Williams


From: 12/20/18 Also #5

EH   


Docket 126


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Scott Patrick Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Lisa Ann Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Scott Patrick Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

Lisa Ann Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Scott Patrick Williams and Lisa Ann Williams


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-10619


Scott Patrick Williams and Lisa Ann Williams


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/15/18, 12/20/18

Also #4 EH   

Docket 116


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Scott Patrick Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Lisa Ann Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-11319


Fernando Coronel and Maria Coronel


Chapter 13


#6.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


EH   


Docket 65


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Fernando Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

Movant(s):

Fernando Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

Maria Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19696


Corinthia A. Williams


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: CORINTHIA A. WILLIAMS


From: 11/29/18, 12/20/18 EH   

Docket 7


Tentative Ruling:

11/29/2018


The evidence that the tax issue which resulted in the dismissal of the Debtor’s second case is insufficient. At minimum, the Debtor should have provided a declaration of the tax preparer she hired to give the Court an opinion regarding the likelihood that the IRS would again file a claim of a similar amount, which would render the Debtor’s case infeasible.


As to service, the Order Setting Hearing on Shortened time required that a Written Notice of the Hearing AND a copy of the Court’s Order Setting the Hearing be sent to the creditors indicated. Instead, Docket No. 15 is a stand-alone proof of service which indicates that the Order and a Notice of Hearing were mailed to the foreclosing creditor. However, Docket reflects a failure by Debtor to file a Notice of Hearing indicating the date, time and place of the hearing. The stand-alone proof of service is insufficient for the Court to have certainty that a Notice of Hearing which satisfies due process requirements was mailed to the foreclosing creditor.

As such, the tentative ruling is to DENY the Motion. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Corinthia A. Williams


Chapter 13

Corinthia A. Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Corinthia A. Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18921


Steven Michael Cross


Chapter 13


#8.00 Motion for Order Determining Value of Collateral EH   

Docket 25

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/20/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Steven Michael Cross Represented By

M Wayne Tucker

Movant(s):

Steven Michael Cross Represented By

M Wayne Tucker M Wayne Tucker

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18809


Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


Chapter 13


#9.00 Motion Re: Objection to Claim Number 3 by Claimant IRS Also #10

EH   


Docket 28

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/7/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Movant(s):

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18809


Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


Chapter 13


#10.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18

Also #9 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18326


Louise Laster


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/29/18

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Louise Laster Represented By

Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18773


Jill Cathleen Watson


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jill Cathleen Watson Represented By Robert W Ripley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18821


Humberto Camacho, Jr and Sarah Camacho


Chapter 13


#13.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Humberto Camacho Jr Represented By Christian N. Cooper

Joint Debtor(s):

Sarah Camacho Represented By Christian N. Cooper

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18846


Jose L. Ferrer and Maria Ferrer


Chapter 13


#14.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose L. Ferrer Represented By

Antonio John Ibarra

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Ferrer Represented By

Antonio John Ibarra

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17769


Kellie C. Baker


Chapter 13


#15.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/15/18

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Kellie C. Baker Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18942


Benjamin John Ramos


Chapter 13


#16.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Benjamin John Ramos Represented By Kevin M Mahan

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19156


William Parker


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

William Parker Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19165


Pamela M Bradford


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/20/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pamela M Bradford Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19169


Kimberly Michelle Giron


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/20/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kimberly Michelle Giron Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19171


Albert Esquivel and Shawna Esquivel


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Albert Esquivel Represented By Kian Mottahedeh

Joint Debtor(s):

Shawna Esquivel Represented By Kian Mottahedeh

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19183


Carmen Lynn Chilson


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carmen Lynn Chilson Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19196


Sheila Rosales Manabat


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sheila Rosales Manabat Represented By John A Varley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19213


Jesus Francisco Alcocer


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Francisco Alcocer Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19233


Yair Salvador Carranza Contreras


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Yair Salvador Carranza Contreras Represented By

Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19234


Jorge Anderson


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/4/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jorge Anderson Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19264


Lupita Meza Perez


Chapter 7


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 12/7/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Lupita Meza Perez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19272


Walter Harrington


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Walter Harrington Represented By Kevin M Cortright

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19277


Kevin Daily


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Kevin Daily Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19278


Charles Greg Lester


Chapter 13


#29.00 Motion for Setting Property Value Also #30

EH   


Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

1/10/2019

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2018, Charles Lester ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2009 Honda Accord (the "Property"). Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC ("Creditor") has a security interest in the Property. On November 6, 2018, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $14,337.52, identifying $7,050 as secured by the Property. On December 19, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to determine the value of the property. Debtor requests that the Property be valued at $4,650, leaving the balance of the claim, $9,687.52, unsecured.

DISCUSSION

One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).

11:00 AM

CONT...

Charles Greg Lester

Chapter 13

Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that retail value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has simply asserted that the value of the Property is $4,650 based on his knowledge of comparable sales. Debtor has not submitted any secondary evidence to support this assertion. Because Debtor has not provided adequate evidence to support his proffered assessment of the Property’s retail value, the Court is inclined to continue the matter for supplemental evidence.


Tentative Ruling:


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Greg Lester Represented By Jenny L Doling

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Charles Greg Lester


Chapter 13

Charles Greg Lester Represented By Jenny L Doling Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19278


Charles Greg Lester


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #29 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Charles Greg Lester Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19281


Michael Talbot


Chapter 7


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 12/11/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Talbot Represented By Ryan A. Stubbe

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19340


Dawn Michele McClure


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Dawn Michele McClure Represented By Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19352


Stacy Scott Patton, Sr


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stacy Scott Patton Sr Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19358


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19360


Michael Rudy Holguin and Juana Patricia Holguin


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Rudy Holguin Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Juana Patricia Holguin Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19368


Salvador Marquez


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Salvador Marquez Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19376


Matthew J Whyte and Laura M Whyte


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Matthew J Whyte Represented By William J Howell

Joint Debtor(s):

Laura M Whyte Represented By William J Howell

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19400


Maria D Valdez Quintero


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maria D Valdez Quintero Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19414


Paul Edward Young, Jr.


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Paul Edward Young Jr. Represented By Stephen L Burton

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19418


Vanessa Alexander


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/26/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vanessa Alexander Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19437


Toni Elizabeth Prima - Zuvich


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/11/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Toni Elizabeth Prima - Zuvich Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19465


Joseph F. Mark


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph F. Mark Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19486


Jacqueline Williams


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jacqueline Williams Represented By Marjan Alitalaei

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19494


Rachel Ann Sullivan


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rachel Ann Sullivan Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19508


Tawnie L Vanderham


Chapter 13


#45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/10/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tawnie L Vanderham Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19528


Deborah Ann Bowie


Chapter 13


#46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/27/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Deborah Ann Bowie Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19532


Jose F Mejia


Chapter 13


#47.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/27/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose F Mejia Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19544


Michael A Reese and Mary P Reese


Chapter 13


#48.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael A Reese Represented By Gary J Holt

Joint Debtor(s):

Mary P Reese Represented By

Gary J Holt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19547


Freddie Steve Huff and Patsy Ruth Huff


Chapter 13


#49.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Freddie Steve Huff Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Patsy Ruth Huff Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19549


Mary Joyce Rudolph


Chapter 13


#50.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mary Joyce Rudolph Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-16362


Lisa Caron


Chapter 13


#51.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lisa Caron Represented By

Bruce A Wilson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-11369


Robert Wayne Cook, Sr. and Kelly Danielle Cook


Chapter 13


#52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 162


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Robert Wayne Cook Sr. Represented By Steven A Alpert

Joint Debtor(s):

Kelly Danielle Cook Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-18349


Fabiola Adame


Chapter 13


#53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 204

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/26/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Fabiola Adame Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-24084


Michael Lee Barnes and Belinda Ann Barnes


Chapter 13


#54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 132


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Lee Barnes Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Belinda Ann Barnes Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-19148


Esmeralda Caldera


Chapter 13


#55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/29/18

EH   


Docket 80


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Esmeralda Caldera Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-20062


Lilia Ivethe Fong


Chapter 13


#56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 77


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lilia Ivethe Fong Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-22033


Shyla L. Montgomery


Chapter 13


#57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 91


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Shyla L. Montgomery Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-15914


Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-16240


Dorothy Mae Simmons


Chapter 13


#59.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/29/18

EH   


Docket 66

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

1/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dorothy Mae Simmons Represented By

M Wayne Tucker

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-17893


Ashley Douglas Faulstich


Chapter 13


#60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 88

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/26/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ashley Douglas Faulstich Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-17902


Patricia Daniels


Chapter 13


#61.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/29/18

EH   


Docket 65


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Patricia Daniels Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


Chapter 13


#62.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 12/6/18

EH       


Docket 72


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-19592


Carlette F. Dickerson


Chapter 7


#63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 94

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON

1/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Carlette F. Dickerson Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-21234


Frank A Horzen and Barbara A Horzen


Chapter 13


#64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 111


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Frank A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Barbara A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-10082


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13


#65.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/29/18, 12/20/18

EH   


Docket 176


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Francisco R Palacios Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11131


Bruce Howard Ruggles and Ann Marie Ruggles


Chapter 13


#66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 80


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bruce Howard Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Ann Marie Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13212


Liliana Martinez


Chapter 13


#67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Liliana Martinez Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13290


Joseph Frank Garcia and Roberta Ann Garcia


Chapter 13


#68.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 37


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph Frank Garcia Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Roberta Ann Garcia Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13599


Maurice Frank Manceau


Chapter 13


#69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 92


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13607


Fernando Ramos


Chapter 13


#70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 82

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/21/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Fernando Ramos Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14187


Andre J Booker and Carrie L Booker


Chapter 13


#71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 58


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Andre J Booker Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Carrie L Booker Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-16164


William Richard Newborg and Serina Rae Newborg


Chapter 13


#72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 67

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/26/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

William Richard Newborg Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Joint Debtor(s):

Serina Rae Newborg Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-16439


Oscar Avila


Chapter 13


#73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 59


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oscar Avila Represented By

Sanaz S Bereliani

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-16992


Nicholas Charles Goodner and Jennifer Louise Goodner


Chapter 13


#74.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nicholas Charles Goodner Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Louise Goodner Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17189


Earma Denise Young Washington and Marvin Ray


Chapter 13


#75.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Joint Debtor(s):

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17402


Thomas Lee Abercrombie and Rebecca Anne Abercrombie


Chapter 13


#76.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Thomas Lee Abercrombie Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Joint Debtor(s):

Rebecca Anne Abercrombie Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-19027


Jaime Villalobos and Jennifer Villalobos


Chapter 13


#77.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 12/20/18

EH   


Docket 55


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jaime Villalobos Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Villalobos Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-20487


Ann Marie Smith


Chapter 13


#78.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 68


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10170


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#79.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 70


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10637


Felipe Gonzalez Plasencia


Chapter 13


#80.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Felipe Gonzalez Plasencia Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11910


Joe Medina


Chapter 13


#81.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 37


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joe Medina Represented By

Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12842


Evangeline Bato Videna


Chapter 13


#82.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 25


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Evangeline Bato Videna Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14277


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13


#83.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 31


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14340


Lawrence A McCoy


Chapter 13


#84.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/15/18, 11/29/18, 12/20/18

EH   


Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lawrence A McCoy Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14725


Percylyn Agustin Basa


Chapter 13


#85.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 55

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/26/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Percylyn Agustin Basa Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14850


Florence M Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#86.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Florence M Rodriguez Represented By Carey C Pickford

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-10460


Julio Cesar Cacho and Rosalie Ann Cacho


Chapter 13


#87.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 63


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julio Cesar Cacho Represented By

M Wayne Tucker

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosalie Ann Cacho Represented By

M Wayne Tucker

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:14-18622


Saul Bautista


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11 Della Cava Lane, Lake Elsinore, California 92532


MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCATION


From: 11/27/18 EH   

Docket 49


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Saul Bautista Represented By

James T Lillard

Movant(s):

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Represented By

Grace Chang-Rodriguez Ann Nguyen

Kennessa C Hartin Delesia Graham Gilbert R Yabes

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:15-19930


Melinda Kay Allen


Chapter 13


#2.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 60 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11139 Laurel Ave., Bloomington CA 92316 . filed by Creditor US Bank Trust National Association as Trustee of IGSC Series II Trust) (Zilberstein, Kristin)


MOVANT: US BANK TRUST NA


EH   


Docket 62


Tentative Ruling:

01/15/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


The Debtor, after seemingly failing to make payments to Movant for several months, now seeks a continuance based on a loan modification request that she has not yet submitted for review. The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for termination of the co-debtor stay based on lack of service on any co-debtor and lack of evidence as to identity of alleged co-debtor. GRANT request under ¶3. DENY request for APO as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Melinda Kay Allen Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-19130


Roger C. Rosal and Rosalinda N. Rosal


Chapter 13


#3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1453 Daffodil Way, Beaumont, California 92223


MOVANT: SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

01/15/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 3 and 12. Request for APO is DENIED as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Roger C. Rosal Represented By William E Windham

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosalinda N. Rosal Represented By William E Windham

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16905


Tina M Coca


Chapter 7


#4.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2345 Cornell Circle, Corona, CA 92881-6625


MOVANT: FIRST MIDWEST BANK


From: 10/16/18 EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tina M Coca Represented By

Emilia N McAfee

Movant(s):

First Midwest Bank, its successors Represented By

Nichole Glowin

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19747


Bianca V Gonzalez-Perez and Cristian Alvarez Lorenzo


Chapter 7


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Toyota Corolla


MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

01/15/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Bianca V Gonzalez-Perez Represented By Freddie V Vega

Joint Debtor(s):

Cristian Alvarez Lorenzo Represented By Freddie V Vega

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20222


Moises Cortez and Rosalia Cortez


Chapter 7


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1661 W Via Bello Drive Rialto, California 92377


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


EH   


Docket 9

Tentative Ruling:


01/15/2019


The copy of the Movant’s motion for relief from stay as filed on the Court’s docket and also as reflected in the courtesy copy provided to the Court is illegible as to the Real Property Declaration. For this reason, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing to February 7, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. The Debtor must file and serve an amended notice of hearing and amended Motion with a clear and legible copy of the Real Property Declaration attached, on or before January 17, 2019.


APPEARANCES WAIVED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Moises Cortez Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosalia Cortez Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20535


Peter W Fournier and Leslie Fournier


Chapter 13


#7.00 Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 23021 Cotati Court, Moreno Valley, CA 92557


MOVANT: PETER FOURNIER AND LESLIE FOURNIER


EH   


Docket 19


Tentative Ruling:

01/15/2019


The Debtors have a foreclosure sale scheduled for February 18, 2019. However, here, the Debtors have failed entirely to address the reasons for the prior dismissal. The Court is aware that a failure to file documents resulted in the dismissal but the Debtors fail to explain why they failed to file the documents and more importantly, how the Court and creditors can have confidence that the same errors which resulted in the prior dismissal will not recur in the current case.


In addition to the foregoing, despite the Debtors’ declaration indicating that the Motion was served pursuant to Rule 7004 as required by the Court’s OST, the proof of service indicates that US Bank was not served to the attention of an officer and was not served at its address as indicated on the FDIC website. As such, the Court finds that service on the secured creditor did not comply with the Court’s OST.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Peter W Fournier Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Joint Debtor(s):

Leslie Fournier Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Peter W Fournier and Leslie Fournier

Laleh Ensafi


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20547


Tawnie L Vanderham


Chapter 13


#8.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate


MOVANT: TAWNIE VANDERHAM


EH   


Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tawnie L Vanderham Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20644


Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley


Chapter 13


#9.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: TERRY E. CROSSLEY AND JANELL CROSSLEY


EH   


Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:

01/15/2019


At the prior hearing the case was dismissed at confirmation based on the Trustee’s objections regarding:

Additionally, the secured creditor indicated their records indicated a failure to pay the December mortgage payment as of the date of the hearing.


In support of the instant Motion, the Debtors acknowledge they were not prepared to provide proof of income to the Trustee in a timely manner. The Debtors assert that they are now able to do so. Exhibit 2 provides profit and loss statements broken down by business (the Debtors run three separate businesses/income earning activities to support themselves). Additionally, the Debtors have provided copies of documents indicating that they are current with their payment obligations in the current case and that they have filed the DSO declaration. Exhibit 3.


Based on the evidence of the Debtors’ efforts to resolve the issues flagged in the prior case, in addition to the proof of service which indicates that Debtors have properly served creditors, the Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion.

10:00 AM

CONT...


Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley


Chapter 13


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Terry E Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Janell Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20759


Elida Soto


Chapter 13


#10.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 13692 Bedford Place, Victorville, CA 92392


MOVANT: ELIDA SOTO


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

01/15/2019


The Motion addresses issues in the prior case related to a lack of sufficient income in the prior case which made it difficult to remain current. However, the Motion provides no evidence or argument to address the actual cause for dismissal – the failure to submit 2017 Federal and State tax returns and refunds to the Chapter 13 Trustee. Having failed to address the basis for dismissal, the Court is inclined to DENY the Motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elida Soto Represented By

William G Cort

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01109 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Titanium Resource Company,


#11.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 - preference,13 Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a Represented By

Alan W Forsley

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01110 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Larson, D.C., an individual


#12.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against John Larson, D.C., an individual. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers, Avoidance of Improper Distributions, and Unjust Enrichment and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13- Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

John Larson, D.C., an individual Represented By

Alan W Forsley

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


#13.00 CONT Status Conference RE: 3rd Party Complaint [4] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, and Third-Party Claim Against John C. Larson, Third-Party Complaint by American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express against John C. Larson


From: 8/21/18, 10/30/18 Also #14

EH   


Docket 4


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

American Express Travel Related Pro Se American Express Company, a New Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


#14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01111. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Werth, Steven)


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18 Also #13

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

American Express Travel Related Pro Se American Express Company, a New Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Mark S Horoupian


Chapter 11

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01113 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Netreva, Inc., a California


#15.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01113. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Netreva, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

Netreva, Inc., a California Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-19993


B & B Family, Incorporated


Chapter 11


#16.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 12/13/16, 3/7/17, 5/30/17, 7/25/17, 9/26/17, 10/31/17, 11/7/17, 5/15/18, 8/21/18


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#17.00 Motion of the Debtor and Debtor-in- Possession for Order Approving Management Agreement


Also #18 EH   

Docket 290

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/29/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#18.00 CONT Motion of the Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession for Order Approving Services Agreement with Force 10 Partners, LLC, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)


From: 11/27/18 Also #17

EH   


Docket 154

Tentative Ruling:


BACKGROUND


On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor is a not-for-profit home health services organization with approximately 160 employees and 360 patients. At the time of filing, Debtor had three patients centers: Riverside, Palm Desert, and Murrieta.


On October 23, 2018, the Debtor filed a Motion for Order Approving Services Agreement with Force 10 Partners, LLC ("Motion"), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b). On November 6, 2018, the H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Foundation") filed opposition to the Motion. The Debtor filed a reply to the Foundations’ opposition on November 20, 2018. Subsequently, the parties, including the United States Trustee ("UST") filed a stipulation to continue the hearing and provide new deadlines for supplemental/amended filings. The Court approved the stipulation and continued the hearing.


Per the Court’s order, the Debtor was required to file any amendments or revisions by December 11, 2018. Instead, the Debtor delayed in filing its amended motion until December 27, 2018 (the "Amended Motion"). No opposition to the Motion has been

2:00 PM

CONT...

filed.


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11



DISCUSSION


The Amended Motion seeks approval of a Management Agreement between the Debtor and Force 10, LLC (the "Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Debtor would retain the services of Adam Meislik as Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) and support services from Force 10 which would be compensated on a monthly basis with Force 10 submitting monthly fee statements on a monthly basis, filed with the Court and served on the UST and other parties in interest. In its prior Opposition, the Foundation was concerned with (1) potential conflicts because Force 10 potentially had a relationship with the Creditor’s Committee which would conflict with its duties to the Debtor, (2) the Foundation believed that Force 10 should seek employment under § 327 instead of § 363(b), (3) the original motion did not address the need for nunc pro tunc relief, (4) there was insufficient information regarding the potential impact of the fees or budget as it relates to a case which the Foundation characterized as administratively insolvent, (5) will the hiring of Force 10 impact the salary of the controller; (6) concerns related to the power of the Debtor’s Board over the Force 10.


TENTATIVE RULING


Here, given the Debtor’s delay in filing the Amended Motion, given that legal issues related to § 327 and § 363(b) have also been raised with regard to employment of Healthsure Management Services, LLC ("HMS"), which is set for hearing on January 29, 2018, and given the issues regarding the estate’s capacity to pay the various professionals sought to be employed are related to both motions, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the Amended Motion re: Force 10 to January 29, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., to be heard concurrently with the Motion to Approve Employment of HMS as Management Consultant.


The Court also notes that the Amended Motion was filed and served with insufficient time to be set on regular notice.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to file and serve an amended notice of hearing on the motion.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

Party Information


Chapter 11

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

Movant(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#19.00 CONT Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case From: 9/25/18, 10/1/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18

Also #20 & #21 EH    

Docket 37

Tentative Ruling:

9/25/2018

BACKGROUND


On July 23, 2018, Richard Garavito ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor previously filed a Chapter 13 case on April 17, 2018, which was dismissed on July 19, 2018.


On August 29, 2018, the Taylor Family Trust of June 16, 2004 ("Creditor"), the primary creditor in the instant case, filed a motion to confirm that the automatic stay terminated pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). On September 7, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to continue/impose the automatic stay. Because Debtor has not offered a cognizable legal argument as to why the automatic stay has not terminated, or why Debtor can obtain a continuation of the automatic stay after the statutory deadline, the Court has posted tentative rulings indicating that it intends to grant Creditor’s motion and deny Debtor’s motion.


On September 11, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the case and an application

2:00 PM

CONT...


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11

shortening time. On September 13, 2018, the Court approved the application shortening time, and set a hearing for September 25, 2018.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) states:


Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c), on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause unless the court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.


11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4) provides a non-exclusive list of sixteen examples of cause – most of which are more appropriately considered when the moving party is an entity other than the debtor.


Here, Debtor’s motion is unclear, at best. The entire argument why the case should be dismissed is reproduced, verbatim, as follows:


In the present case, since the motion to impose and/or continue the stay was not timely filed, the stay will no longer be in effect with the pending motion to terminate the stay filed by secured creditor Taylor Family Trust.


The Debtor should not be penalized due to counsel’s inadvertent calendaring

2:00 PM

CONT...


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11

error of the 30 days rule of filing a motion to impose and/or continue the stay. However, an argument can be made that under the majority approach a motion to impose or continue the stay shall be filed as to the Debtor individually and not as to the property of the estate. Here, the Subject Property is property of the estate and the automatic stay should be in effect as to the Subject Property.


However, due to circumstances surrounding the possible termination of the stay, the Debtor requests dismissal of this case as there is no purpose if the stay is not in effect as to the Subject Property.


[Dkt. No. 37, pg. 5]. In summary, Debtor acknowledges that the stay has statutorily terminated and the deadline to continue the automatic stay has lapsed, but then argues that such stay termination is with regards to the Debtor only, not property of the estate. Despite the argument, the Debtor then asserts that due to "circumstances" the Debtor requests dismissal because there is "no purpose" if the stay has also terminated as to property of the estate.


There are multiple issues with the above line of argument. First, Debtor does not appear to have raised any coherent cause for dismissal – the only argument made in favor of dismissal, that the "Subject Property" is not protected by the automatic stay, (and thus this Chapter 11 case cannot be successful) is also explicitly rejected by Debtor. Second, § 1112(b) requires the Court to consider whether dismissal or conversion to Chapter 7 is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. Here, Debtor’s schedules filed in the instant case indicate that all creditors would likely be paid in full if this case was converted to Chapter 7. Therefore, pursuant to the analysis required by § 1112(b), it is unclear why this case would be dismissed rather than converted to Chapter 7.


Finally, the Court acknowledges that, in a reply relating to its motion to confirm that the automatic stay has terminated, Creditor has requested that, if the case is dismissed, Debtor be restricted from re-filing by a bar. While raising this argument in a reply relating to a different motion is procedurally improper, the Court need not address the request at the current time given the issues above.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11



TENTATIVE RULING



Debtor and Creditor to argue: (1) whether there is cause for dismissal; (2) whether the automatic stay is in effect as to the Subject Property; and (3) whether dismissal or conversion to Chapter 7 would be in the best interests of creditors.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

Movant(s):

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#20.00 Motion (1) Authorizing sale of real property located at 5065 Brooks Street, Montclair, California, free and clear of liens, claims and interests, (2) Confirming sale to third party or the highest qualified bidder and approving overbid procedures; and (3) Determining that buyer is a good faith purchaser


Also #19 & #21 EH   

Docket 81


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#21.00 CONT Amended Motion (related document(s): 30 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 5065 Brooks Street, Montclair, Ca 91763 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay


MOVANT: RICHARD GARAVITO


From: 12/4/18, 12/18/18 Also #19 & #20

EH   


Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

Movant(s):

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#22.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/21/18, 10/16/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18


Also # EH       

Docket 7


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:30 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#23.00 CONT Debtor and Debtor in Possession's Motion to Approve Compromise of Disputes Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Precedure 9019


From: 12/20/18 Also #24 & #25 EH   

Docket 127

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

1/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Movant(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:30 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#24.00 CONT Debtor and Debtor in Possession's Motion for Order Authorizing Assumption of Executory Contract Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sect 365(a)


From: 12/20/18 Also #23 & #25 EH   

Docket 129

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

1/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Movant(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:30 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#25.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18


Also #23 & #24 EH   

Docket 5


Tentative Ruling:

12/19/2018


All parties have authorization to appear telephonically for the 12/19/2018 Status Conference.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

11:00 AM

6:17-14068


Miguel Angel Gutierrez


Chapter 7


#1.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

1/16/19

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 3,250.00 Trustee Expenses: $ 131.12


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Miguel Angel Gutierrez Represented By Melissa A Raskey

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-10273


Ever Ramirez Barreto


Chapter 7


#2.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

1/16/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $1,140.91


Attorney Fees: $8,220.89 Attorney Costs: $439.06


Accountant Fees: $959.88 Court Charges: $350


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ever Ramirez Barreto Represented By

Scott D McDonald

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Ever Ramirez Barreto


Chapter 7

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Noreen A Madoyan Craig G Margulies

11:00 AM

6:15-15514


Manuel Jose Saldana


Chapter 7


#3.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 94


Tentative Ruling:

1/16/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 5,000 Trustee Expenses: $ 0


Attorney Fees: $35,606.45 Attorney Costs: $986.36


Accountant Fees: $2,364 Accounts Expenses: $27.05


Internal Revenue Service: $1,372.66


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Manuel Jose Saldana Represented By Robert G Uriarte

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Manuel Jose Saldana


Chapter 7

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Elyza P Eshaghi Rika Kido

11:00 AM

6:10-51855


Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


Chapter 7


#4.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 116


Tentative Ruling:

1/16/2019


On December 30, 2010, Brian & Delia Gudets ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 20, 2011, Debtors received a discharge. On October 6, 2011, the case was closed.


On November 27, 2017, UST filed a motion to reopen the case to potentially administer a settlement award arising from prepetition litigation. On January 4, 2018, Debtors amended Schedules B and C to schedule a personal injury claim in the amount of $50,000, and claim an exemption in the property of $50,000. The Court notes that this amendment may have been in violation of FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 1009(a) and 9006(b)(1), however, the Trustee declined to object to the amended exemptions. On February 13, 2018, the IRS filed a proof of claim ("Claim 4") in the amount of $92,398.37, identifying $34,307.73 as secured and $57,990.64 as entitled to priority.


On April 9, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise, which was approved by this Court on May 3, 2018. After receiving, $50,000 from the approved settlement, Trustee’s general and special counsel filed applications for compensation.


Trustee filed the instant final report on December 11, 2018. The final report proposes to pay $41,488.74 to Trustee and his counsels for administrative expenses, and to pay the remaining $6,011.26 on account of Claim 4. In essence, Trustee’s proposed distribution pays the Chapter 7 administrative expenses first, the priority tax claim of

11:00 AM

CONT...


Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


Chapter 7

the IRS second, and the Debtor’s exemption third (although there are no funds available at this point). After reviewing the compromise motion, it appears that the Trustee’s rationale is as follows. First, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B), exempt property of the Debtor is liable for Claim 4. Second, pursuant to § 724(b), payments made on behalf of IRS are only to be made after payment of the administrative expenses of the estate. Trustee appears to miss, however, § 522(k), which provides that exempt property cannot be used to pay administrative expenses, except under limited circumstances which are not applicable here. This provision would seem to preclude Trustee’s attempt to jump ahead of Debtor’s exemption in the order of distribution.


At first glance, the three cited provisions above would seem paradoxical. According to Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B) places Claim 4 above Debtor’s exemption.

According to Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 724(b) appears clear that payment on behalf of Claim 4 is subordinated to payment of administrative expenses. And 11 U.S.C. § 522(k) appears clear that payment of administrative expenses is subordinated to payment of Debtor’s exemption.


The Court’s resolution of this paradox is the following. 11 U.S.C. § 724(b) is only applicable to "[p]roperty in which the estate has an interest." Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), the settlement proceeds at issue are subject to an exemption and therefore have been "exempt[ed] from property of the estate." See also Schwab v. Reilly, 560

U.S. 770, 775 (2010) ("If an interested party fails to object within the time allowed, a claimed exemption will exclude the subject property from the estate."). Therefore, the estate does not have an interest in the settlement proceeds and § 724(b) is inapplicable. Because § 724(b) is inapplicable, the remaining provisions place Claim 4 ahead of the exemption and the exemption ahead of the administrative expenses. As a result, Trustee’s is precluded from jumping Claim 4 and Debtor’s exemption in the order of distribution. Therefore, the proper distribution appears to be to pay the secured portion of Claim 4, and to return the balance to the Debtor on account of Debtor’s exemption in the proceeds.


Given the novelty of this legal issue, however, the Court will afford Trustee an opportunity to brief the issue if so desired.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


Chapter 7


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brian Gudets Represented By

Rex Tran Ronald Karz

Joint Debtor(s):

Delia F Gudets Represented By Rex Tran Ronald Karz

Trustee(s):

Sandra L Bendon (TR) Pro Se

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert A Hessling

11:00 AM

6:13-23186


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


#5.00 CONT Motion for Turnover of Insurance Renewal Commissions From: 8/22/18, 9/12/18, 11/14/18

EH    


Docket 150

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard C Cox Jr Represented By Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

11:00 AM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7


#6.00 CONT Status Conference re: Second Joint Motion and Moving Memorandum by Chapter 7 Trustee and Revere Financial Corporation for Order Approving Settlement between Chapter 7 Trustee and Revere Financial Corporation


From: 8/22/18 EH    

Docket 521

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Movant(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#7.00 Motion for Objection to Claim of Exemptions by Debtor, Julie Lynn Salazar EH   

Docket 30

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/30/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

11:00 AM

6:15-21418


James Lloyd Walker


Chapter 7


#8.00 Motion for : (1) Order to Show Cause Why Debtor should not be held in Contempt and (2) Authority to Operate Rental Property and Employ Management Company


EH   


Docket 127

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

1/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Lloyd Walker Represented By

Andrew Edward Smyth

Movant(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

2:00 PM

6:18-15022


Rafael Alvarez Martinez


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01223 United States Trustee for the Central District of v. Alvarez Martinez


#9.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01223. Complaint by United States Trustee for the Central District of California, Region 16 against Rafael Alvarez Martinez. (Fee Not Required). with adversary cover sheet Nature of Suit: (41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e))) (Green, Everett)


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: JUDGMENT ENTERED 12/10/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rafael Alvarez Martinez Represented By Kevin J Kunde

Defendant(s):

Rafael Alvarez Martinez Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

United States Trustee for the Central Represented By

Everett L Green

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-10208


Rolando Carlos Reyes


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01117 Pringle v. Reyes


#10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01117. Complaint by John P. Pringle against Reginald Reyes. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). with Proof of Service Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Iskander, Brandon)


From: 7/25/18, 10/24/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rolando Carlos Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

Defendant(s):

Reginald Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

Joint Debtor(s):

Florencia Aquino Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

Plaintiff(s):

John P. Pringle Represented By Brandon J Iskander

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Rolando Carlos Reyes


Chapter 7

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP

2:00 PM

6:17-20025


Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


#11.00 CONT Status Conference on Complaint filed on 3/1/18 to Determine Dischargeability of Debt Pursuant to 11 USC 523(a)(6)


From: 5/3/18, 8/2/18, 8/29/18, 12/5/18, 1/9/19 Also #12

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Defendant(s):

Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

Joint Debtor(s):

Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Plaintiff(s):

Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-20025


Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


#12.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Counterclaim [19] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint to Determine Dischargeability Pursuant to 11

U.S.C. §523(a)(6) and COUNTERCLAIM of Shatara Adrienne Thompson for Defamation, Counterclaim by Robert Lee Thompson Jr, Shatara Adrienne Thompson against Beatriz M Gutierrez


From: 8/2/18, 8/29/18, 12/5/18, 1/9/19 Also #11

EH   


Docket 19


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Defendant(s):

Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

Joint Debtor(s):

Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

2:00 PM

CONT...


Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-18295


Eastern Legends CW


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01222 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bobby Lee Associates, LLC


#13.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01222. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Bobby Lee Associates, LLC. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Polis, Thomas)


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

Defendant(s):

Bobby Lee Associates, LLC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Thomas J Polis

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

2:00 PM

6:17-18295


Eastern Legends CW


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01227 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Wang


#14.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01227. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Ming Chung Wang. (Charge To Estate).

Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

Defendant(s):

Ming Chung Wang Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Thomas J Polis

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

2:00 PM

6:17-18295


Eastern Legends CW


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01228 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Via Cerro Partners, LP


#15.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01228. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Via Cerro Partners, LP. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

Defendant(s):

Via Cerro Partners, LP Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Thomas J Polis

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

2:00 PM

6:17-13012


Issa M Musharbash


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


#16.00 CONT Status conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01138. Complaint to Determine Non-Dischargeability of Debt by Phillip Musharbash , Violette Musharbash against Issa M Musharbbash , Amal Musharbbash


From: 9/20/17, 2/7/18, 3/7/18, 8/15/18, 9/5/18, 10/17/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Defendant(s):

Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

Amal Musharbash Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Plaintiff(s):

Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

Violette Musharbash Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-11635


Sam Daniel Dason


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01211 Olivares v. Dason et al


#17.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference Re: Amended Complaint by Juddy Olivares, Eric A Panitz against Sam Daniel Dason; 68- Dischargeability - 523(a)(6) Willful and Malicious Injury


FROM: 10/24/18


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sam Daniel Dason Represented By Robert G Uriarte

Defendant(s):

Sam Daniel Dason Represented By Robert G Uriarte

Joint Debtor(s):

Greeta Sam Dason Represented By Robert G Uriarte

Plaintiff(s):

Juddy Olivares Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Sam Daniel Dason


Chapter 7

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Represented By Brett Ramsaur

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01248 Revere Financial Corporation, a California corpora v. Roger, MD


#18.00 CONT Motion by Revere Financial Corporation and Receiver Jerry Wang to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Answer by Douglas J. Roger to First Amended Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation and Receiver Jerry Wang


From: 11/28/18, 12/12/18 EH   

Docket 133

Tentative Ruling:

01/16/2019


BACKGROUND

On October 25, 2013, Douglas Jay Roger ("Debtor" or "Defendant") filed his petition for chapter 7 relief. On September 22, 2014, Revere Financial Corporation ("Revere") and Jerry Wang ("Receiver") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint for determination of the dischargeability of debts pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2)(B), 523(a) (2)(A), 523(a)(4)(A), 523(a)(4) & 523(a)(6); and objecting to the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to §§727(a)(3), 727(a)(4)(A), 727(a)(4)(B), 727(a)(5), & 727(a)(7)

("Complaint" or "Dischargeability Action").

On October 6, 2014, the Debtor filed a motion to dismiss which resulted in dismissal of the original Complaint. On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (the "FAC"). A motion to dismiss the FAC was filed on April 24, 2018. The Court’s order denying the motion to dismiss the FAC was entered on July 9, 2018. The Defendant filed his answer to the FAC on October 12, 2018 ("Answer").


On November 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in the Answer ("Motion"). An opposition to the Motion was filed on November 12, 2018 ("Opposition"), and a reply to the Opposition was filed on December 5, 2018 ("Reply"). Since the filing of the Motion, the hearing has been

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

continued twice. First, by stipulation of the parties and then a second time on the Court’s initiative.


DISCUSSION


"Motions to strike are ‘generally disfavored because they are often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice.’ " Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1182 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Rosales v. Citibank, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001)). "[M] otions to strike should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation." Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). "When ruling on a motion to strike, this Court ‘must view the pleading under attack in the light most favorable to the pleader.’ " Id. (citing RDF Media Ltd. v. Fox Broad. Co., 372 F. Supp. 2d 556, 561 (C.D. Cal. 2005)).


Rule 12(f) provides that the court "may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(f). "The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. " Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi–Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994)). Accordingly, "[a] defense may be struck if it fails to provide ‘fair notice’ of the basis of the defense." Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2004); see also Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979).


As a threshold matter, the parties urge the Court to consider the appropriate standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss affirmative defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has examined the authorities cited by the parties and finds the reasoning of cases in line with Vogel v. Huntington Oaks Delaware Partners, LLC, 291 F.R.D. 438, 440 (C.D. Cal. 2013) and Rahman v. San Diego Accounts Serv., 2017 WL 1387206, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2017), persuasive. Specifically, the Court agrees with courts which have held that Wyshak relied on Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) in

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

determining the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense. Accordingly, when

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 562, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969, 167 L. Ed. 2d

929 (2007) abrogated the standard set forth in Conley, it followed logically that Wyshak necessarily now encompasses the "plausibility" standard; whatever standard "fair notice" previously encompassed no longer exists. Rahman at *2. Moreover, as other courts have noted, this Court agrees that the ability of defendants to amend the answer to assert an omitted affirmative defense on the written consent of the adverse party or by leave of the district court renders the imposition of the plausibility standard not overly burdensome. 5 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1274 (3d ed.).


Application to the Affirmative Defenses asserted in the Answer


First, the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the First and Fourth Affirmative Defenses must be stricken. Given that Defendant does not contest the Motion as to these defenses, the Motion is GRANTED as to the First and Fourth Affirmative Defenses.


The Court now turns to the remaining affirmative defenses: the Second Defense (Laches), the Third Defense (Unclean Hands), the Fifth Defense (Good Faith), the Sixth Defense (Failure to Mitigate), the Seventh Affirmative Defense (Offset), and the Eighth Affirmative Defense (Acts of Third Parties). As to these affirmative defenses, the Court follows the approach of Vogel as it applies to the facts of the instant case. Here, as in Vogel, the Defendant’s affirmative defenses provide no grounds for the defenses. The Defendant asks the Court and Plaintiffs to read certain portions of the Answer and Complaint in conjunction and, in turn, to infer and ascribe meaning to the proffered defenses. The Defendant’s request, however, is misplaced.

As indicated above, Twombly and Wyshak require that affirmative defenses be plausible. Given the conclusory nature of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses as pled, there is insufficient factual support to determine that any of the remaining defenses are plausible.


TENTATIVE RULING

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger

Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion in its


Chapter 7

entirety, striking all affirmative defenses without prejudice to Defendant’s rights under the Federal Rules to seek amendment.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Movant(s):

Revere Financial Corporation, a Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation, a Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Jerry Wang Represented By

Franklin R Fraley Jr Anthony J Napolitano

A. Cisneros Represented By

Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Carmela Pagay Franklin R Fraley Jr


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:09-01235 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#19.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18


EH      


Docket 1

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

David Loughnot

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 7

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K. DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#20.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

01/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18


EH      


Docket 1

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


Chapter 7

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Paul Roman Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

Michael I Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Empire Land, LLC


Roye Zur


Chapter 7

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01329 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#21.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

(Defendant - Empire Partners, Inc) HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18


EH      


Docket 1

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 7

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Previti Realty Fund, L.P. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

The James Previti Family Trust Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:18-12282


Frank Javier Valderrama


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01141 Balderas et al v. Valderrama


#22.00 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint EH   

Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

1/16/19

BACKGROUND


On March 21, 2018, Frank Valderrama ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On July 2, 2018, Debtor received a discharge.


On June 25, 2018, Elizabeth Balderas & Jose Carrillo (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against Debtor for non-dischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) (A).


On July 17, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 10, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. On September 10, 2018, the Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint with leave to amend.


On September 28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "FAC"). On October 19, 2018, Debtor filed another motion to dismiss. On October 31, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. The Court held a hearing on the matter on November 14, 2018. At the hearing of November 14, 2018, the Court stated that Elizabeth

2:00 PM

CONT...


Frank Javier Valderrama


Chapter 7

Balderas lacked standing to bring the claims that were the subject of the FAC. The Court also noted that the FAC needed to be revised because parts of the FAC were unclear to the extent of being incomprehensible. The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend until December 7, 2018.


On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (the "SAC"). The Court notes that while the SAC has dropped the reference to Elizabeth Balderas in the body of the complaint, the caption page of the complaint and the adversary proceeding cover sheet still include reference to Elizabeth Balderas. On December 19, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.


DISCUSSION


  1. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD


    In order to avoid dismissal pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege sufficient factual matter, which if accepted as true, would "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a court can draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct. Id. The plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id.


  2. NON-DISCHARGEABILITY STANDARD


As a preliminary note, the Court notes that the format and opposition of the FAC is rather confusing. The adversary proceeding cover sheet and the first page of the complaint identify the complaint as a non-dischargeability complaint under 11 U.S.C.

§ 523(a)(2) [not itself an actual provision] and § 523(a)(2)(A); three causes of action are likewise identified: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; and

2:00 PM

CONT...


Frank Javier Valderrama


Chapter 7

  1. fraud.


    The adversary cover sheet, in the section titled "nature of suit," also checks § 523(a) (4). As was made clear in the previous motion to dismiss tentative rulings, the Court will not address a cause of action which is not clearly asserted in the complaint. Here, once again, Plaintiffs have not actually mentioned § 523(a)(4) in the entirety of the complaint, and, therefore, the Court will construe the FAC as solely a request under § 523(a)(2)(A). As a result, the Court will not address Debtor’s argument that Plaintiffs are time-barred from bringing a § 523(a)(4) claim.


    11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) states:


    1. A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –


  1. for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of creditor, to the extent obtained by –


    1. false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;


The elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim are well-established: (a) the debtor made representations; (b) which were known to be false; (c) the representations were made with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (d) the creditor relied on such representations; (e) the creditor sustained loss and damage as a proximate result of the representations. See, e.g., In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010).


As noted by Debtor, FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 9(b) is applicable to a § 523(a)(2)(A) non- dischargeability proceeding. See, e.g., In re Kimmel, 2008 WL 5076380 at *1 (9th Cir. 2008). "In order to properly plead fraud with particularity, the complaint must allege the time, place, and content of the fraudulent representation such that a defendant can

2:00 PM

CONT...


Frank Javier Valderrama


Chapter 7

prepare an adequate response to the allegations." Id.


Here, while its organization remains confusing, the FAC does appear to contain allegations which, if liberally construed, amount to a false representation of a material fact. For example, paragraph 35 states:


Each time Plaintiffs made a payment, Debtor assured Plaintiff Carrillo that progress was being made on the project. Debtor assured Plaintiff Carrillo that materials and labor were being expended with the money Plaintiff Carrillo paid Debtor. Debtor’s representations were false, in that, at the meeting of the creditors, Debtor testified under oath that he did not use any money he received by Plaintiff Carrillo to pay for material or labor.


The FAC also contains different variations, in different locations, of the following assertion, found in ¶ 40: "Debtor intentionally withheld the true information from Plaintiff Carrillo so that Plaintiff Carrillo and other [sic] would continue to pay Debtor money." Regarding the element of reliance, the Court notes that ¶ 32 concludes by stating: "Plaintiff Carrillo would not have paid Debtor additional funds had he known that Debtor was keeping the money for himself," which could be construed as alleging reliance on the part of Plaintiff. Debtor has not argued that Plaintiff have failed to adequately allege damages, and it seems clear that the element of damages had been adequately asserted.


Turning to the heightened pleading standard of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 9(b), it would appear that the FAC, if liberally construed, does contain allegations of fraudulent representations with sufficient particularity. Specifically, for example, paragraph 35, reproduced above, appears to allege that Debtor asserted he was spending the money on materials and constructions each time that a payment was made. Given that paragraph ¶ 36 identifies a list of dates when payments were made, it would appear that, taking the FAC as a whole, there are adequate assertions of a particular representation, made by a particular person, on a particular date.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Frank Javier Valderrama


Chapter 7

In Debtor’s motion to dismiss, Debtor appears to assert that the FAC fails to plead fraud with particularity because "[t]here is no allegation that any payment was made as a result of any specific misrepresentation." [Dkt. No. 24, pg. 9]. As the Court noted above, there are certain sections of the FAC, such as ¶ 32, which assert that Debtor would not have made payments to Debtor, if not for Debtor’s representation that the money was being spent on materials and construction. It would appear that such allegations are adequate to allege fraud with particularity.


Debtor also argues that the first cause of action, breach of contract, should be dismissed as a matter of law because the cause of action is not a basis to hold a debt to be non-dischargeable. The Court notes, however, that the tentative ruling of August 29, 2018, pointed out that if Plaintiffs wished to obtain a money judgment, Plaintiffs would need to articulate the legal basis for that debt so that the Court would have a basis to liquidate the debt. While it is not clear from the face of the FAC, it would appear that the cause of action for breach of contract was not intended to serve as a basis for non-dischargeability, but, rather, a basis for a money judgment. Furthermore, given the references to state law and the absence of any reference to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), it appears that the second cause of action, for breach of fiduciary duty, also may serve the same purpose. While it is debatable whether "breach of contract" and "breach of fiduciary duty" should serve as independent causes of action, the Court understands them to serve as simply providing the legal basis of the alleged debt, which would only be relevant if Plaintiffs were to prevail on the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim.


Debtor argues that the retention of Elizabeth Balderas on the caption page of the complaint and on the adversary proceeding cover sheet is "frivolous and included in bad faith." [Dkt. No. 24, pg. 7]. As noted above, Elizabeth Balderas has been removed from the body of the complaint. The Court notes that, given that this is the third motion to dismiss, both parties have retained language from prior pleadings in their instant pleadings, some of which is inappropriate given the previous tentative rulings.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to remove Elizabeth Balderas as a named

2:00 PM

CONT...


Frank Javier Valderrama


Chapter 7

plaintiff in this action, and to remove reference to § 523(a)(2).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

Defendant(s):

Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

Movant(s):

Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

Plaintiff(s):

Elizabeth Balderas Represented By John F Bazan

Jose Carrillo Represented By

John F Bazan

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-16417


Robert H Mills, III


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01225 Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. v. Mills, III


#23.00 Motion For Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication EH       

Docket 23

Tentative Ruling:

1/16/19

BACKGROUND


On August 1, 2017, Robert Mills ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On November 6, 2017, Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Debtor for nondischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) & (a)(6). On December 6, 2017, Debtor filed his answer. On October 1, 2018, after a stipulation between the parties was approved by the Court, Debtor filed an amended answer.


On November 27, 2018, Debtor filed a motion for summary judgment. Debtor argues that Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed its opposition.


On January 3, 2019, Debtor’s counsel, Todd Turoci, filed a motion to withdraw as attorney. Given the date of the filing of the motion, the Court will not rule on the motion to withdraw until after the summary judgment hearing.


The pertinent facts, which are detailed in the respective pleadings and the complaint,

2:00 PM

CONT...


Robert H Mills, III


Chapter 7

are not much in dispute and will only be concisely summarized here. On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed state court litigation against Debtor and other parties in relation to previous business dealings. The claims for relief in the state court complaint were: (a) breach of written PSA; (b) breach of guarantee; (c) breach of validity certificate; (d) breach of workout agreement; (e) money due; (f) account stated; (7) two counts of conversion. Only the second, third, fourth, and sixth claims for relief were brought against Debtor. On November 18, 2014, Debtor filed a countercomplaint. After Debtor filed bankruptcy, Plaintiff filed the instant adversary proceeding and, on December 22, 2017, Plaintiff withdrew its state court complaint.


Debtor now argues that the voluntary dismissal of the state court complaint results in the application of a statute of limitations period calculated as if the state court litigation had never been brought. Debtor further argues that such a calculation would result in the instant adversary proceeding being barred.


DISCUSSION



  1. Summary Judgment Standard


    Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 56(a) (incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7056).


    The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bell v. Cameron Meadows Land Co., 669 F.2d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1982). All reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. Hector v. Wiens, 533 F.2d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1976).

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Robert H Mills, III


    Chapter 7

    If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. However, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material fact…." Matsushita Electrical Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986).


    A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.


  2. Statute of Limitations


    CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 338(d) provides for a statute of limitations of three years for "[a]n action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake." Debtor argues that because Plaintiff did not timely bring a claim for fraud, the nondischargeability proceeding is time barred.


    Debtor’s argument is unsuccessful for the reasons articulated in In re Banks, 263 F.3d 862, 868-69 (9th Cir. 2001). As is noted by Plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit in Banks arrived at the conclusion that the filing of a state court lawsuit, which does not include a claim for fraud, can properly preserve and establish a claim, and that that claim can then constitute the debt which is the basis of the nondischargeability complaint.


    Here, Plaintiff filed a state court complaint which includes claims for relief against Debtor on the grounds of: (a) breach of guarantee; (b) breach of validity certificate; (c) breach of workout agreement; and (d) account stated. Therefore, Plaintiff timely established those claims against Debtor. Those timely established claims can then constitute the "debt" underlying a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim. In summary, it is not a firm requirement that a creditor timely establish a claim for fraud in order to bring a

    § 523(a)(2)(A) claim. Timely establishing a claim based on a different theory of liability, if such claim fits within the § 523(a)(2)(A), is sufficient.1


    In the reply, Debtor attempts to distinguish the instant situation based on the fact that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its state court litigation. This distinction is without merit here, however, because such voluntary dismissal occurred after the instant adversary proceeding was filed. The operative date for determining whether a complaint is barred by the statute of limitations is the date of the filing of that

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Robert H Mills, III


    Chapter 7

    complaint. When the instant adversary proceeding was filed, the state court litigation was still pending, and, therefore, this action was timely filed.


    For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the state court complaint filed by Plaintiff timely established a debt, and that Plaintiff is entitled to attempt to fit that timely established debt within the statutory nondischargeability provisions identified in the complaint.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Robert H Mills III Represented By

    Catherine Christiansen

    Defendant(s):

    Robert H. Mills III Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Robert H. Mills III Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Plaintiff(s):

    Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Robert H Mills, III


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12440


    Paul Pound


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01147 Lloyd v. Pound


    #24.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment From: 11/14/18, 12/5/18

    Also #25 EH   

    Docket 6

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/6/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Paul Pound Represented By

    Todd L Turoci

    Defendant(s):

    Paul M Pound Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    April Lloyd Represented By

    Chane Buck

    Plaintiff(s):

    April Lloyd Represented By

    Chane Buck

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12440


    Paul Pound


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01147 Lloyd v. Pound


    #25.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Complaint by April Lloyd against Paul M Pound. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud, 67 - Dischargeability - 523(a) (4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury


    From: 9/5/18, 11/14/18, 12/5/18 Also #24

    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/6/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Paul Pound Represented By

    Todd L Turoci

    Defendant(s):

    Paul M Pound Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Plaintiff(s):

    April Lloyd Represented By

    Chane Buck

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    3:00 PM

    6:18-20547


    Tawnie L Vanderham


    Chapter 13


    #26.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate


    MOVANT: TAWNIE VANDERHAM


    From: 1/15/19 EH   

    Docket 15


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Tawnie L Vanderham Represented By Benjamin R Heston

    Movant(s):

    Tawnie L Vanderham Represented By Benjamin R Heston

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:11-40033


    Maria G. Suarez and Juan M. Suarez


    Chapter 13


    #1.00 Motion to Reopen Chapter 13 Case to obtain an order, after receipt of a chapter 13 discharge, to avoid a junior lien that was the subject of a successful motion under 11 U.S.C.§506(d)


    EH   


    Docket 84

    Tentative Ruling:


    01/17/2019


    BACKGROUND


    Debtors filed their petition for bankruptcy relief on September 23, 2011 and received a discharge on February 22, 2017. During the pendency of the case, the Debtors sought and obtained a motion to avoid a junior lien encumbering their principal residence located at 2628 S. Goldcrest Ave, Ontario, CA ("Property"), which motion was granted conditioned upon receipt of a chapter 13 discharge. Debtors failed to obtain an order finally avoiding the lien post-discharge and the case was closed on March 31, 2017. On December 27, 2018, Debtors filed a Motion to Reopen Chapter 13 Case ("Motion"). The filing fee has been paid, service was proper, and the Motion is unopposed.


    DISCUSSION


    A bankruptcy judge may consider a number of nonexclusive factors in determining whether to reopen, including (1) the length of time that the case has been closed; (2) whether the debtor would be entitled to relief if the case were reopened; and (3) the availability of nonbankruptcy courts, such as state courts, to entertain the claims. In re Antonious, 373 B.R. 400, 405-06 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007); see 11 U.S.C. §

    350.


    Here, Debtors’ case has been closed since for nearly two years. The lapse in

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Maria G. Suarez and Juan M. Suarez


    Chapter 13

    time since case closing is substantial. However, the Debtors have offered evidence that the extended lapse in time arose from potentially excusable neglect on the part of their prior counsel. Evidence that the Debtors’ prior counsel misplaced their file and failed to file a declaration and order militates in favor of granting the Motion to avoid prejudicing the Debtors for the actions of prior counsel.


    The Debtors have requested relief that can be obtained in a reopened bankruptcy case and which is unique to the bankruptcy court’s powers under Title 11. Based on the foregoing, Debtors’ request for relief weighs in favor of granting the Motion.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    The Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion and reopen the case for a period of 45 days to permit the Debtors to seek and obtain a final order avoiding the junior lien encumbering their Property.

    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Maria G. Suarez Represented By Stephen Hosford Nicholas W Gebelt

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Juan M. Suarez Represented By Stephen Hosford Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Maria G. Suarez Represented By Stephen Hosford Nicholas W Gebelt

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Maria G. Suarez and Juan M. Suarez


    Chapter 13

    Juan M. Suarez Represented By Stephen Hosford Nicholas W Gebelt

    Trustee(s):

    Amrane (RS) Cohen (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:15-16710


    Sean Kirkpatrick


    Chapter 13


    #2.00 CONT Motion For Sanctions for Violation of the Automatic Stay From: 12/6/18, 12/20/18

    EH   


    Docket 65

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/28/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Sean Kirkpatrick Represented By Javier H Castillo

    Movant(s):

    Sean Kirkpatrick Represented By Javier H Castillo Javier H Castillo Javier H Castillo

    Trustee(s):

    Rod (MJ) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-14619


    Candice Maria Borrego


    Chapter 13


    #3.00 Application for Compensation for Andy C Warshaw, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 3/1/2018 to 12/21/2018, Fee: $775, Expenses: $75.


    EH   


    Docket 72


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Candice Maria Borrego Represented By Andy C Warshaw

    Movant(s):

    Candice Maria Borrego Represented By Andy C Warshaw Andy C Warshaw Andy C Warshaw

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-15032


    Ruben Lopez and Jessica Lopez


    Chapter 13


    #4.00 Motion to Disallow Claims of CACH, LLC its successors and assigns as assignee of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.


    EH   


    Docket 47

    Tentative Ruling:

    01/17/2019


    BACKGROUND:


    On June 16, 2017, Ruben and Jessica Lopez (collectively, "Debtors") filed their petition for chapter 13 relief. On December 10, 2018, the Debtors filed objection to Claim No. 8 (the "Claim") of CACH, LLC, as successor-in-interest to Capital One Bank, N.A ("Claimant"). Service was proper, and no opposition has been filed.


    APPLICABLE LAW:


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


    When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." United States v. Offord Fin., Inc., (In re Medina), 205 B.R. 216,222 (9th Cir. BAP 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Ruben Lopez and Jessica Lopez


    Chapter 13

    defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Ashford v.

    Consol. Pioneer Mort. (In re Consol. Pioneer Mort.), 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant.

    Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


    ANALYSIS:


    Rebuttal of the Prima Facie Proof of Claim

    In this case, the Debtors assert that the Claim should be disallowed as time barred.

    Section 502(b)(1) provides that a claim is deemed allowed, unless such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor under applicable law. The statute of limitations applicable to common counts is four years if the action is founded upon a contract or other writing (e.g., "book account" (¶ 3:398), "account stated" (¶ 3:400), or money lent on a note), and the statute of limitations is generally four years from the date of the last item in the account. CCP § 337(1),(2); Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri–Valley Oil & Gas Co., 116 CA 4th 1375, 1396, FN. 9 (Cal.

    App. 2004).


    Here, the Debtors have provided evidence that the last transaction between Debtors and the original creditor took place on January 30, 2013. The Debtors have established that over four years have lapsed since the last item in the account. Thus, the burden to show the validity of Claim No. 8 must shift to Claimant. Claimant, however, though properly served, has failed to respond, which may be deemed as consent to the relief requested under LBR 9013-1(h). Thus, as the ultimate burden of persuasion remains on the Claimant, the Objection must be sustained.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Ruben Lopez and Jessica Lopez


    Chapter 13



    TENTATIVE RULING


    The Objection is SUSTAINED. Claim #8 is disallowed in its entirety.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ruben Lopez Represented By

    Terrence Fantauzzi

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Jessica Lopez Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Movant(s):

    Ruben Lopez Represented By

    Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

    Jessica Lopez Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-20473


    Felipe Gerardo


    Chapter 13

    Adv#: 6:18-01225 Turoci et al v. Cuevas jr. et al


    #5.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01225. Complaint by Todd Turoci, Luis G. Torres against Jamie Alberto Cuevas jr., Gloria Valenzuela, Wagner Segura, The Law Offices of Jamie A. Cuevas Jr. Inc.. Todd)


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER DISMISSING ADVERSARY COMPLAINT FILED 1/17/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Felipe Gerardo Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    Defendant(s):

    Jamie Alberto Cuevas jr. Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Gloria Valenzuela Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Wagner Segura Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    The Law Offices of Jamie A. Cuevas Represented By

    Nicholas W Gebelt

    Plaintiff(s):

    Todd Turoci Represented By

    Todd L Turoci

    Luis G. Torres Represented By

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Felipe Gerardo


    Todd L Turoci


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-10170


    Vernita Goodwin


    Chapter 13


    #6.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 12/20/18

    Also #7 EH       

    Docket 66


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-10170


    Vernita Goodwin


    Chapter 13


    #7.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


    Also #6 EH   

    Docket 73


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Movant(s):

    Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-12992


    Charles Henry Sacayan and Catherine Angela McNicholas


    Chapter 13


    #8.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case Also #9

    EH   


    Docket 62


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Charles Henry Sacayan Represented By

    Ethan Kiwhan Chin

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Catherine Angela McNicholas Represented By

    Ethan Kiwhan Chin

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-12992


    Charles Henry Sacayan and Catherine Angela McNicholas


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


    Also #8 EH   

    Docket 66


    Tentative Ruling:

    Motion GRANTED.


    Appearances Waived. Movant to lodge an order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Charles Henry Sacayan Represented By

    Ethan Kiwhan Chin

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Catherine Angela McNicholas Represented By

    Ethan Kiwhan Chin

    Movant(s):

    Charles Henry Sacayan Represented By

    Ethan Kiwhan Chin

    Catherine Angela McNicholas Represented By

    Ethan Kiwhan Chin

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-17556


    Daniel Javier Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #10.00 CONT Motion to Authorize Loan Modification (LMM) with Flagstar Bank or for an Order Permitting Parties to enter into such an agreement


    From: 11/8/18 Also #11

    EH   


    Docket 14


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Movant(s):

    Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-17556


    Daniel Javier Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #11.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/8/18

    Also #10 EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-18847


    Jennifer Lee Minkalis


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18

    EH    


    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jennifer Lee Minkalis Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-18859


    Lawrence Sendejas, Jr. and Denise Sendejas


    Chapter 13


    #13.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18

    EH    


    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Lawrence Sendejas Jr. Represented By

    Raj T Wadhwani

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Denise Sendejas Represented By

    Raj T Wadhwani

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19440


    Randy Radford


    Chapter 13


    #14.00 Motion For Order Compelling Attorney To File Disclosure Of Compensation Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 329 And Federal Rule Of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016


    EH       


    Docket 11

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/13/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Randy Radford Represented By Michael Avanesian

    Movant(s):

    United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

    Abram Feuerstein esq

    Trustee(s):

    Rod (MH) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19594


    Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


    Chapter 13


    #15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19595


    Richard Lee Bigham


    Chapter 13


    #16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Richard Lee Bigham Represented By Michael E Clark

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19611


    Pearl Bluitt


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Pearl Bluitt Represented By

    Kenneth D Sisco

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19628


    Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


    Chapter 13


    #18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19635


    Tonya L Jenkins


    Chapter 13


    #19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Tonya L Jenkins Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19637


    Malerie B Barrozo


    Chapter 13


    #20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Malerie B Barrozo Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19675


    Jon Patrick Park


    Chapter 13


    #21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/3/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jon Patrick Park Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19676


    Cesar Perez


    Chapter 13


    #22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Cesar Perez Represented By

    Andrew Nguyen

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19696


    Corinthia A. Williams


    Chapter 13


    #23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Corinthia A. Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19704


    Leticia Arthur


    Chapter 13


    #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Leticia Arthur Represented By Donald J Gagnon III

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19708


    Ulysses Bautista


    Chapter 13


    #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/7/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ulysses Bautista Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19729


    John R Saxton


    Chapter 13


    #26.00 Motion to Avoid Lien Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. Also #27 - #29

    EH   


    Docket 12


    Tentative Ruling:

    01/17/2019

    DISCUSSION

    On November 16, 2018, John Saxton ("Debtor") filed his petition for chapter 13 relief. The Debtor’s schedules indicated total property assets valued at no more than $43,072. The primary assets of the estate are a 2013 Pleasure Way Traverse Motorhome (the "Motorhome") and a Ford E150 and a 1972 Viking (the "Vehicles").


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), judicial or nonpossessory, nonpurchase money security interest liens are avoided only to the extent they impair an exemption claimed by the debtor in the bankruptcy case.


    A lien "impairs" an exemption to the extent that:

11:00 AM

CONT...


John R Saxton

(the "Motions")


Chapter 13


The Motions indicate that the creditors identified by the Debtor hold liens against the Debtor’s personal property, not against any real property. First, it is not clear from the Abstracts of Judgments what, if any, property the recorded judgments attach to. Second, a review of the leading California practice guide regarding enforcement of judgments indicates that the judgments obtained by the Debtor’s creditors cannot attach to the Debtors’ interests in the Vehicles or Motorhome. Cal. Prac. Guide Enf. J. & Debt Ch. 6C-2, Types of Property Subject to JLPP, and that judgment liens against personal property, generally, can only attach to:



Id. A review of the Debtor’s schedules A & B indicates that the Debtor’s assets do not fall within any of the categories of personal property upon which a judgment lien on personal property can attach.


TENTATIVE RULING

For the foregoing reasons, the tentative ruling is to DENY the Motion without prejudice.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John R Saxton Represented By Andy C Warshaw

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


John R Saxton


Chapter 13

John R Saxton Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19729


John R Saxton


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #26 - #28


EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John R Saxton Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19737


Abelardo Magana and Santos Magana


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Abelardo Magana Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

Joint Debtor(s):

Santos Magana Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19781


Adolfo Nabor


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Adolfo Nabor Represented By

Jaime G Monteclaro

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19792


Biani Berlenda Mora


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Biani Berlenda Mora Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19793


Jose Luis Garcia


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/7/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Luis Garcia Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19821


Elicela Gramajo


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elicela Gramajo Represented By Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19840


Alfonso Herrera Mendez and Juana Ceja Mendez


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alfonso Herrera Mendez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Juana Ceja Mendez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19841


Jorge Lino Madrigal


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jorge Lino Madrigal Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19854


Mourence Eugene Burris


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mourence Eugene Burris Represented By Carey C Pickford

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19867


LaKecha Marie Haley Mays


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LaKecha Marie Haley Mays Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19868


James T Guzman


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/10/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James T Guzman Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19883


Lucy D Aguilar


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/10/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Lucy D Aguilar Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19894


Noemi Meraz Espinoza


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Noemi Meraz Espinoza Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20272


John Ryan


Chapter 13


#42.00 Motion By United States Trustee To Dismiss Chapter 13 Case With A Re-Filing Bar


CASE DISMISSED 12/21/18


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

01/17/2019

BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2018 ("Petition Date"), John Ryan (the "Debtor") filed a petition for chapter 13 relief.


The Debtor’s case was dismissed on December 21, 2018, for failure to file the balance of schedules which were due on December 20, 2018. On the date of the dismissal, the Office of the United States Trustee ("UST") filed a Motion to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case with A Re-Filing Bar ("Motion"). Having previously entered a dismissal order, the Court will narrowly consider the propriety of amending the dismissal order to include a re-filing bar. Service was proper and no opposition has been filed.


DISCUSSION

The UST asserts that a bar of up to three years is warranted. The UST’s Motion includes evidence that the Debtor filed 6 cases in 2018. Five cases, including the instant case, were dismissed for failure to file information. The sixth case was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. In addition to the serial filings, the UST has provided evidence that the Debtor likely used another person’s social security number in at least one of his prior filings. Based on the dismissal of the Debtor’s prior cases for failure to file documents, the failure of the Debtor to comply with the duties of a debtor, the history of dismissed filings, and the filing of the instant case seemingly for no other purpose than to frustrate creditors, dismissal with a bar is warranted.

11:00 AM

CONT...


John Ryan


Chapter 13

The Court finds that Debtors apparent attempts to file bankruptcy for the sole purpose of forestalling creditors, and in particular, the egregious conduct in using a false social security number, warrants a three-year bar under the Court’s § 105 and § 349 authority as requested by the UST.


TENTATIVE RULING


Based on the foregoing, including the Debtor’s failure to file opposition which this Court deems as consent to the granting of the Motion under LBR 9013-1(h), the Court is inclined to DENY the request for dismissal as moot and GRANT the Motion as to the request for a refiling bar.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. UST is to lodge an order amending the dismissal order to include a bar as soon as resources permit such order to be lodged.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Ryan Pro Se

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

Abram Feuerstein esq

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-14987


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13


#43.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 12/20/18

EH   


Docket 125


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-10082


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13


#44.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/29/18, 12/20/18, 1/10/19

EH   


Docket 176


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Francisco R Palacios Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13686


David K Johnson and Janet L Johnson


Chapter 13


#45.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David K Johnson Represented By Gary J Holt

Joint Debtor(s):

Janet L Johnson Represented By Gary J Holt

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11416


Darlene J. Wadler


Chapter 13


#46.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/23/18, 11/8/18, 12/20/18

EH   


Docket 29


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Darlene J. Wadler Represented By Michael Jay Berger

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11636


Amanuel Montrell Bradberry and Katrina Lashall


Chapter 13


#47.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 12/20/18

EH   


Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Amanuel Montrell Bradberry Represented By Gary S Saunders

Joint Debtor(s):

Katrina Lashall Bradberry Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12862


Antoinette Marie Tutt


Chapter 13


#48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Antoinette Marie Tutt Represented By Brian C Miles

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16178


Eriberto A. Sandoval


Chapter 13


#49.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eriberto A. Sandoval Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16261


Joseph R. Hernandez


Chapter 13


#50.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 25


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16983


Lakendra Johnson


Chapter 13


#51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 37


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lakendra Johnson Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-19614


Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


Chapter 13


#52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 61


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

9:00 AM

6:18-20759


Elida Soto


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 13692 Bedford Place, Victorville, CA 92392


MOVANT: ELIDA SOTO


From: 1/15/19 EH   

Docket 12

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elida Soto Represented By

William G Cort

Movant(s):

Elida Soto Represented By

William G Cort

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

9:30 AM

6:03-15174


Devore Stop A General Partners


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


#2.00 CONT Evidentiary hearing re Order to Show Cause Why Jesse Bojorquez, American Business Investments, William Morschauser, Stephen Collias and Continental Capital, LLC, Should Not Be Sanctioned for Facilitating Payment to and/or Receiving Payment for Broker Services in Contravention of this Court's August 11, 2003, Sale Order


From: 11/5/18 EH   

Docket 242

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

Devore Stop Represented By

Hutchison B Meltzer

Defendant(s):

Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

9:30 AM

CONT...


Devore Stop A General Partners


Chapter 7

Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

9:30 AM

6:03-15174


Devore Stop A General Partners


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


#1.00 CONT Evidentiary hearing re Order to Show Cause Why Jesse Bojorquez, American Business Investments, William Morschauser, Stephen Collias and Continental Capital, LLC, Should Not Be Sanctioned for Facilitating Payment to and/or Receiving Payment for Broker Services in Contravention of this Court's August 11, 2003, Sale Order


From: 1/22/19 EH   

Docket 242

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

Devore Stop Represented By

Hutchison B Meltzer

Defendant(s):

Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

9:30 AM

CONT...


Devore Stop A General Partners


Chapter 7

Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:15-14230


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01085 PRINGLE v. Winn et al


#2.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01085. Complaint by JOHN P PRINGLE against Ralph Winn. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). and other Defendants including DOES 1-25 Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13-Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer, 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property,14 - Recovery of money/property - other, 91- Declaratory judgment)


From: 7/12/17, 8/23/17, 10/25/17, 5/16/18, 6/27/18, 9/26/18


EH   


Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

Defendant(s):

Ralph Winn Represented By

Douglas A Plazak

Sterling Security Service, Inc. Represented By Seth W Wiener

Natalia V Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

Steven B Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

Stacy Winn Represented By

Douglas A Plazak

2:00 PM

CONT...


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

JOHN P PRINGLE Represented By Charity J Manee Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

11:00 AM

6:18-10170


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 12/20/18, 1/17/19

Also #2 EH       

Docket 66

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-10170

Vernita Goodwin

Chapter 13

#1.10 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19, Adv. Fr. 2/7/19

EH   

Docket 70

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-10170


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


From: 1/17/19 Also #1

EH   


Docket 73

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17556

Daniel Javier Garcia

Chapter 13

#3.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/8/18, 1/17/19

EH    


Docket 0


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19628


Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/17/19

EH    


Docket 0


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16178


Eriberto A. Sandoval


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/17/19

EH       


Docket 32

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eriberto A. Sandoval Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:13-20227

James Robert Kinney and Stephanie Mae Kinney

Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14954 GLASGOW COURT,

Victorville, CA, 92394 Under 11 U.S.C. § 362

(HOLDING DATE)


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR. COOPER


From: 11/13/18, 12/18/18 EH   

Docket 133

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/20/18

Tentative Ruling:

11/13/18

Service: Proper Opposition: YES


Debtors dispute that they are behind 9 payments and request a 30-day continuance to establish the payment history.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Robert Kinney Represented By John F Brady Lisa H Robinson

Joint Debtor(s):

Stephanie Mae Kinney Represented By John F Brady Lisa H Robinson

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


James Robert Kinney and Stephanie Mae Kinney


Chapter 13

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Dane W Exnowski

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:14-18622


Saul Bautista


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11 Della Cava Lane, Lake Elsinore, California 92532


MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCATION


From: 11/27/18, 1/15/19 EH   

Docket 49

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/15/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Saul Bautista Represented By

James T Lillard

Movant(s):

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Represented By

Grace Chang-Rodriguez Ann Nguyen

Kennessa C Hartin Delesia Graham Gilbert R Yabes

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:14-22637


Michelle Ann Maki


Chapter 13


#3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: (2007 Chevrolet HHR Vin # 3GNDA23D37S523936); In Addition Movant seeks Relief from Co-Debtor Stay


MOVANT: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.


EH   


Docket 111

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/16/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michelle Ann Maki Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Ally Financial Inc. Represented By Adam N Barasch

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:14-24553


Brooks L Sternberg and Angela Caldero


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 10866 Deer Canyon Dr, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91737


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


From: 12/18/18 EH   

Docket 68

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 12/20/18

Tentative Ruling:

12/18/2018

Service: Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brooks L Sternberg Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Angela Caldero Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Brooks L Sternberg and Angela Caldero

Dane W Exnowski


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-16909


Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 9617 Surrey Ave, Montclair, California 91763


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 234

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edward Edmund Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Georgia Parrilla Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo BAnk, N.A. Represented By April Harriott

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya

Sean C Ferry


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-13523


Loretta Chavis


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 837 Michigan Ave, Beaumont, CA 92223


MOVANT: SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC


From: 11/27/18 EH   

Docket 26


Tentative Ruling:

11/27/2018


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Loretta Chavis Represented By Dan Perry

Movant(s):

Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc., Represented By

Nichole Glowin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-16542


Mike A. Granados, Jr. and Carolynne Jeannette Granados


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 12370 Oaks Avenue, Chino, CA 91710


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


The motion indicates that Debtors are four months delinquent on postpetition payments. Debtors’ opposition, however, appears to argue that Debtors are only approximately two payments delinquent. Parties to discuss this material discrepancy and whether parties desire to enter into an adequate protection agreement.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mike A. Granados Jr. Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Carolynne Jeannette Granados Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld Gabriella Gonzales

Movant(s):

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Mike A. Granados, Jr. and Carolynne Jeannette Granados

Nancy L Lee

Dane W Exnowski


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-19614


Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


Chapter 13


#8.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 BMW 328i Sedan SULEV


MOVANT: BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA


EH   


Docket 58


Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


The motion indicates that Debtors are seven months delinquent on postpetition payments. Debtors’ opposition, however, appears to show that Debtors are only three months delinquent on postpetition payments. Parties to discuss this material discrepancy and whether parties desire to enter into an adequate protection agreement.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Movant(s):

BMW Bank of North America Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-20377


Deborah L Tafolla


Chapter 13


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6777 Ridgeline Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92407


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


EH   


Docket 38

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/14/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Deborah L Tafolla Represented By

Jessica De Anda Leon

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Angie M Marth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14388


Jesus Pabloff and Virginia Pabloff


Chapter 13


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 BMW 6 Series, VIN WBA6A0C51FGB53596


MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC


EH   


Docket 63


Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Pabloff Represented By

Tom A Moore

Joint Debtor(s):

Virginia Pabloff Represented By Tom A Moore

Movant(s):

Americredit Financial Services, Inc., Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jesus Pabloff and Virginia Pabloff


Jennifer H Wang


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16220


Paul Sheldon Kirkwood


Chapter 13


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 37244 Fallsgrove Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92563-5080


MOVANT: SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC


EH   


Docket 40

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Paul Sheldon Kirkwood Represented By Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

Sunwest Mortgage Company, Inc., Represented By

Nichole Glowin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16261


Joseph R. Hernandez


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1541 Strawberry Drive, Perris, CA, 92571 UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 362.


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


From: 1/8/19 EH   

Docket 26

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr Represented By

Dane W Exnowski John D Schlotter

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17349


Thomas More Butler and Tamara Butler


Chapter 13


#13.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2005 Monterey Cruiser Boat & 2006 Trailrite Trailer


MOVANT: LBS FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION


From: 1/8/19 EH   

Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for relief from § 1301(a) stay because the motion does not appear to have been served on any "co-debtor," as that term is used in the statute. GRANT requests under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Thomas More Butler Represented By

Stuart G Steingraber

Joint Debtor(s):

Tamara Butler Represented By

Stuart G Steingraber

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Thomas More Butler and Tamara Butler


Chapter 13

LBS Financial Credit Union Represented By Karel G Rocha

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17605


Joseph N Duguay, II


Chapter 13


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 745 E 5th St., Ontario, CA 91764


MOVANT: U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A.


EH   


Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph N Duguay II Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Represented By

Christina J O

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17700


Nick Caropino


Chapter 13


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2339 Three Bar Lane, Norco, CA 92860


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


EH   


Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3, and 12. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nick Caropino Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Angie M Marth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19460


Mauricio Trejo and Griselda Trejo


Chapter 7


#16.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2008 Cadillac CTS


MOVANT: GATEWAY ONE LENDING & FINANCE


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

  1. and (2). DENY relief from §§ 1201, 1301 because this is a Chapter 7 proceeding. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mauricio Trejo Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Griselda Trejo Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Movant(s):

    Gateway One Lending & Finance Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Mauricio Trejo and Griselda Trejo


    Karel G Rocha


    Chapter 7

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19486


    Jacqueline Williams


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 Honda Civic, VIN 2HGFG3B56CH543239


    MOVANT: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP


    EH   


    Docket 27

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/10/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jacqueline Williams Represented By Marjan Alitalaei

    Movant(s):

    Credit Acceptance Corporation Represented By Jennifer H Wang

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10070


    Jaelyn Roylene Young


    Chapter 13


    #18.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


    MOVANT: JAELYN YOUNG


    EH   


    Docket 16


    Tentative Ruling:

    1/29/2019


    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion for failure to comply with the Court’s self- calendaring instructions. Specifically, the motion indicates that it was served on January 19, 2019, which is four days short of the notice required by this Court’s procedures.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jaelyn Roylene Young Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Movant(s):

    Jaelyn Roylene Young Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-13481


    Rorye James Mosley, Sr.


    Chapter 13


    #19.00 Order To Show Cause Why Brian Soo-Hoo Should Not Be Sanctioned In The Amount Of $1,000


    EH   


    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/26/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20096


    Angel Maria Broome


    Chapter 7


    #19.10 CONT Motion to vacate dismissal and reinstate chapter 7 case Advanced From: 1/30/19

    EH   


    Docket 15


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Angel Maria Broome Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Angel Maria Broome Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:16-19993


    B & B Family, Incorporated


    Chapter 11


    #20.00 Joint Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy Which Includes Reorganized Debtor Selling Its Business


    EH   


    Docket 211

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

    Movant(s):

    Patricia Forte Represented By

    D Edward Hays

    2:00 PM

    6:16-19993


    B & B Family, Incorporated


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01116 Forte v. B & B Family, Incorporated


    #21.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01116. Complaint by Patricia Forte against B & B Family, Incorporated


    From: 7/24/18, 7/31/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 11/27/18


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

    Defendant(s):

    B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Plaintiff(s):

    Patricia Forte Represented By

    D Edward Hays Laila Masud

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10155


    Jose De Jesus Hernandez


    Chapter 11


    #22.00 Motion for approval of the adequecy of the chapter 11 disclosure statement Also #23

    EH   


    Docket 111

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

    Eric Bensamochan

    Movant(s):

    Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

    Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10155


    Jose De Jesus Hernandez


    Chapter 11


    #23.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 10/23/18, 11/27/18 Also #22

    EH   


    Docket 96

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

    Eric Bensamochan

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #24.00 CONT Application for Compensation for Nicholas W Gebelt, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/26/2018 to 11/21/2018, Fee: $31,465.00, Expenses: $673.89.


    From: 1/8/19 EH   

    Docket 95

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/26/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #25.00 Motion for an Order Granting an Extension of the Deadline for Plan Confirmation in a Small Business Case Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(e)


    EH   


    Docket 158

    Tentative Ruling:

    1/29/19

    BACKGROUND


    On July 12, 2018, LA Steel Services, Inc. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On August 30, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order imposing a deadline of January 8, 2019, for Debtor file its plan and disclosure statement. On January 8, 2019, Debtor filed its Chapter 11 disclosure statement and plan, as well as a motion for approval of the disclosure statement. That same day, Debtor filed the instant motion to extend the deadline for plan confirmation in a small business case. On January 15, 2019, Pacific Steel Group ("Creditor") filed a limited opposition.

    Creditor’s limited opposition requests that the Court limit its review to the § 1129(e) deadline to confirm a Chapter 11 plan in a small business case, and not address the exclusivity deadline imposed by § 1121(e)(1), to the extent that the latter provision is invoked by the motion. While the motion does not appear to address § 1121(e)(1), it appears that the limited opposition may have been filed because Debtor selected an incorrect event code when docketing the motion. On January 22, 2019, Debtor filed its reply, conceding that the motion did not seek to extend the exclusivity, while reserving the right to disagree with certain legal conclusions raised in the opposition.


    DISCUSSION

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    11 U.S.C. § 1129(e) states:


    In a small business case, the court shall confirm a plan that complies with the applicable provisions of this title and that is filed in accordance with section 1121(e) not later than 45 days after the plan is filed unless the time for confirmation is extended in accordance with section 1121(e)(3).


    And 11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(3) states:


    1. the time periods specific in paragraphs (1) and (2), and the time fixed in section 1129(e) within which the plan shall be confirmed, may be extended only if –


      1. the debtor, after providing notice to parties in interest (including the United States trustee), demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not that the court will confirm a plan within a reasonable period of time;

      2. a new deadline is imposed at the time the extension is granted; and

      3. the order extending time is signed before the existing deadline has expired


Here, it appears that service was proper and there are no unresolved objections to the instant motion. Additionally, the most active opposing party in this case, Creditor, has stated that it does not oppose the relief sought in the motion. Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the contents of the motion and concludes that it meets the relatively low burden of "demonstrate[ing] by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not" that a plan will be confirmed in a reasonable amount of time. Finally, the existing deadline under § 1129(e) is currently February 22, 2019, and, therefore, the Court anticipates that the order will be timely entered pursuant to § 1121(e)(3)(C).

2:00 PM

CONT...


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, extending the deadline for plan confirmation to May 8, 2019.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Movant(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#26.00 Disclosure Statement Describing Debtors Chapter 11 Plan EH   

Docket 87

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/26/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#27.00 CONT Motion of the Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession for Order Approving Services Agreement with Force 10 Partners, LLC, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)


From: 11/27/18, 1/15/19 Also #28 - #29

EH   


Docket 154

Tentative Ruling:


BACKGROUND


On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor is a not-for-profit home health services organization with approximately 160 employees and 360 patients. At the time of filing, Debtor had three patients centers: Riverside, Palm Desert, and Murrieta.


On October 23, 2018, the Debtor filed a Motion for Order Approving Services Agreement with Force 10 Partners, LLC ("Motion"), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b). On November 6, 2018, the H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Foundation") filed opposition to the Motion. The Debtor filed a reply to the Foundations’ opposition on November 20, 2018. Subsequently, the parties, including the United States Trustee ("UST") filed a stipulation to continue the hearing and provide new deadlines for supplemental/amended filings. The Court approved the stipulation and continued the hearing.


Per the Court’s order, the Debtor was required to file any amendments or revisions by December 11, 2018. Instead, the Debtor delayed in filing its amended motion until December 27, 2018 (the "Amended Motion"). No opposition to the Motion has been

2:00 PM

CONT...

filed.


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11



DISCUSSION


The Amended Motion seeks approval of a Management Agreement between the Debtor and Force 10, LLC (the "Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Debtor would retain the services of Adam Meislik as Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) and support services from Force 10 which would be compensated on a monthly basis with Force 10 submitting monthly fee statements on a monthly basis, filed with the Court and served on the UST and other parties in interest. In its prior Opposition, the Foundation was concerned with (1) potential conflicts because Force 10 potentially had a relationship with the Creditor’s Committee which would conflict with its duties to the Debtor, (2) the Foundation believed that Force 10 should seek employment under § 327 instead of § 363(b), (3) the original motion did not address the need for nunc pro tunc relief, (4) there was insufficient information regarding the potential impact of the fees or budget as it relates to a case which the Foundation characterized as administratively insolvent, (5) will the hiring of Force 10 impact the salary of the controller; (6) concerns related to the power of the Debtor’s Board over the Force 10.


TENTATIVE RULING


Here, given the Debtor’s delay in filing the Amended Motion, given that legal issues related to § 327 and § 363(b) have also been raised with regard to employment of Healthsure Management Services, LLC ("HMS"), which is set for hearing on January 29, 2018, and given the issues regarding the estate’s capacity to pay the various professionals sought to be employed are related to both motions, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the Amended Motion re: Force 10 to January 29, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., to be heard concurrently with the Motion to Approve Employment of HMS as Management Consultant.


The Court also notes that the Amended Motion was filed and served with insufficient time to be set on regular notice.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to file and serve an amended notice of hearing on the motion.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

Party Information


Chapter 11

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

Movant(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#28.00 CONT Motion of the Debtor and Debtor-in- Possession for Order Approving Management Agreement


From: 1/15/19 Also #27 - #29

EH   


Docket 290

Tentative Ruling:

01/29/2019


BACKGROUND


On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor is a not-for-profit home health services organization with approximately 160 employees and 360 patients. At the time of filing, Debtor had three patients centers: Riverside, Palm Desert, and Murrieta.


On December 20, 2018, the Debtor filed a Motion for Order Approving Management Agreement with Healthsure Management Services, LLC (HMS) ("Motion"), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b). The Motion seeks an order approving the management agreement with HMS, to provide "management, financial, technology and healthcare services" to the Debtor (the "Agreement"). The Agreement provides for HMS to manage the daily operations of the Debtor with compensation to be paid on a monthly basis, except for a portion that shall be deferred so that the Debtor remains solvent postpetition. (Motion at 2:11-16). HMS has provided management services to the Debtor since October 2016. (Furman Decl. ¶2). Debtor believes approval of the Motion is necessary and appropriate to provide continuity of management of the Debtor. (Id. at ¶3). The Debtor seeks approval of the Agreement pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 363(b).

On January 2, 2019, Jerry Seelig, the Patient Care Ombudsman ("PCO"), filed a statement related to the Motion. On January 2, 2019, the Debtor, Committee, the

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Foundation"), and the PCO filed their stipulation to continue the hearing (the "Stipulation"). The Court approved the Stipulation. On January 14, 2019, the Foundation timely filed its opposition to the Motion ("Opposition"). On January 22, 2019, the Debtor timely replied ("Reply").


As a threshold matter, the PCO asserts that HMS has (1) failed to implement corrective actions required under a 2017 Accreditation Report, and (2) is failing to provide adequate care delivery for hospice patients. The PCO recommends that the Court defer a ruling on the Motion until the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) concludes its review of the Debtor’s operation and issues a Statement of Deficiencies. The Court notes that the PCO cannot provide certainty that such a statement will be issued. The PCO separately requests that the Court require the Debtor to provide information regarding staffing levels and ratios, and requests that the Board of Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties should complete a thorough review of any such report.


The Foundation argues that HMS must be employed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327, but if employed under § 327 the Motion does not meet requirements for employment under applicable law, and the Debtor has not established "exceptional circumstances" to justify nunc pro tunc relief as requested.


DISCUSSION


Employment pursuant to § 363 versus §327

First, as to the Foundation’s arguments that HMS should be employed pursuant to § 327 in lieu of § 363, the Court has evaluated and agrees with the Debtor that the weight of authority supports the availability of § 363 as a vehicle for retention of management professionals and/or consultants. In re Nine W. Holdings, Inc., 588

B.R. 678, 686 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018). Further, as indicated by the Debtor, such retentions have long been authorized by the courts of the Central District of California. (Mot. at 4:4-13). In this case, where the evidence indicates that has provided management services to the Debtor since 2016, the Court agrees with the analysis of the Nine West Court, inter alia, that "rehabilitating a debtor and preserving the value of the debtor's business—significant Code-related objectives—can be best accomplished here by permitting the Debtors to utilize their estate assets under section

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

363 of the Code to hire the advisory services firm and its personnel who played key management roles at the company prepetition, thus ensuring the continuity of such services." Nine West at 691.


Nunc Pro Tunc Employment

Nunc pro tunc employment is limited to "exceptional circumstances where an applicant can show both [1] a satisfactory explanation for the failure to receive prior judicial approval and [2] that he or she has benefited the bankruptcy estate in some significant manner" (collectively, these two factors is referred to as the "THC Factors"). Okamoto v. THC Fin’l Corp. (In re THC), 837 F.2d 389, 392 (9th Cir.

1988). As to nunc pro tunc employment, the Foundation’s evidentiary objections are well-taken. Specifically, the Debtor has provided a de minimis declaration attesting to the business justification for the retention of HMS. Moreover, the Court is concerned that there is a lack of clarity distinguishing the contours of the Agreement with HMS from the services being provided by Force 10. The Court is inclined to permit the Debtor an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence outlining the management structure of the Debtor assuming both entities are employed. This is particularly important given the potential costs of permitting the Debtor to enter into agreements with two separate management-type entities.


TENTATIVE RULING


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.



Party Information

Debtor(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen

2:00 PM

CONT...


Movant(s):


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall


Chapter 11

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#29.00 CONT Emergency Motion for Order Authorizing The Debtor To Keep Two Pre- Petition Bank Accounts Open For The Sole Purpose of Accepting Electronic Deposits

(FINAL HEARING)


From: 8/20/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18 Also #27 - #28

EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

Movant(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall

2:00 PM

6:18-18339


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


#30.00 CONT Disclosure Statement for Chapter 11 Liquidating Plan Proposed by the Debtor


From: 12/18/18 Also #31 & #32 EH   

Docket 124

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-18339


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


#31.00 CONT Application to Employ Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP as General Bankruptcy Counsel


From: 11/27/18, 12/18/18 Also #30 & #32

EH   


Docket 45

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

11/27/2018

DISCUSSION


"[I]t is clear that the bankruptcy court has broad discretion over the appointment of professionals." In re Seeburg Prods. Corp., 215 B.R. 175, 178 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997). A violation of the rules of professional responsibility can be sufficient reason to disqualify a proposed counsel from being employed in a case. See, e.g.. In re Universal Bldg. Prods., 486 B.R. 650, 661 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (collecting cases).


"An attorney retained by the trustee, or debtor in possession, who assists with the collection of the assets of the estate, must abide by the highest professional standards." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. 830, 840 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1991) "Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is the standard of behavior." Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545, 546 (N.Y. 1928).


"[A] debtor who proposes a sale of all of its assets . . . must fully disclose to the court

2:00 PM

CONT...


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11

and creditors the relationship between the buyer and seller, as well as the circumstances under which the negotiations have taken place, any marketing efforts, and the factual basis upon which the debtor determined that the price was reasonable." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. at 842. In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., continued on to state:


The Court finds from the evidence before it that Ms. Bernstein either (1) knew of the collusive and undisclosed relationships in this case and knowingly participated in misleading the Court and creditors; or (2) didn’t know of the collusive and undisclosed relationships in this case, and is therefore wholly incompetent because she insisted on remaining ignorant of the facts and law applicable to her case notwithstanding the numerous indicia of questionable conduct along the way. Whether Ms. Bernstein’s acts were wrongful, willfully incompetent or grossly negligent is not important to the determination here.

Under either case, the Court concludes her fees must be denied in their entirely [sic], she should not be permitted to represent debtors in possession before any bankruptcy court, and her conduct in this case must be referred to the State Bar of California for disciplinary proceedings.


Id. at 847.


In the instant case, it appears Applicant failed to act with honesty and candor in relation to the sale of substantially all of the estate’s assets. Specifically, notwithstanding Applicant’s duty to the Court, Applicant failed to disclose a material side deal which was pertinent to the terms of the sale under review, and Applicant even stated at the hearing it was not Applicant’s job to make such disclosure.

Applicant’s conduct in this case has fallen short of complying with the rules of professional conduct and has obstructed the Court’s review of the primary matter in this case, the sale of substantially all of Debtor’s assets. Given that such conduct is clearly adequate to disallow Applicant’s fees in their entirety, the Court is inclined to find that authorizing the employment of Applicant would be a frivolous exercise.


TENTATIVE RULING

2:00 PM

CONT...


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


The Court is inclined to DISALLOW the application.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

Movant(s):

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-18339


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


#32.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 11/6/18, 12/18/18 Also #30 & #31

EH   


Docket 5

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

11:00 AM

6:17-12858


Scott Leigh Baumann and Holly Lynn Baumann


Chapter 7


#1.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 52

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Scott Leigh Baumann Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Holly Lynn Baumann Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy Carmela Pagay

11:00 AM

6:17-18300

Deborah Stevenson

Chapter 7

#2.00 Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien with County of San Bernardino EH   

Docket 57

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Deborah Stevenson Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

Deborah Stevenson Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20096

Angel Maria Broome

Chapter 7

#3.00 Motion to vacate dismissal and reinstate chapter 7 case EH   

Docket 15

*** VACATED *** REASON: ADVANCED HEARING TO 1/29/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Angel Maria Broome Pro Se

Movant(s):

Angel Maria Broome Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-17350


Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


Chapter 7


#4.00 Motion for Order Requiring Disgorgement of Funds from Hilder & Associates EH   

Docket 192

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Dean L. Springer Sr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Tami Jo Springer Pro Se

Movant(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

2:00 PM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01231 Winegardner Masonry, Inc. v. Salazar


#5.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01231. Complaint by Winegardner Masonry, Inc. against Julie Lynn Salazar. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e)))


EH   


Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Defendant(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

2:00 PM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#6.00 CONT Motion by Chapter 7 Trustee for Order Approving Equity Buy Back Agreement


From: 12/5/18 Also #7 & #8 EH   

Docket 24

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

2:00 PM

6:18-17177

Julie Lynn Salazar

Chapter 7

#7.00 Application to Employ BHHS Perrie Mundy Realty Group as Real Estate Broker / Agent

Also #6 & #8 EH   

Docket 27

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

2:00 PM

6:18-17177

Julie Lynn Salazar

Chapter 7

#8.00 CONT Motion for Objection to Claim of Exemptions by Debtor, Julie Lynn Salazar

From: 1/16/19 Also #6 & #7 EH   

Docket 30

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

2:00 PM

6:18-12027

Richard M. Thomas

Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


#9.00 CONT Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Amy Williams and Richard M. Thomas, Jr


From: 11/7/18, 12/12/18 Also #10

EH   


Docket 13

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Defendant(s):

Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Movant(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Frank X Ruggier

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Frank X Ruggier

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Richard M. Thomas


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

2:00 PM

6:18-12027


Richard M. Thomas


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


#10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01156. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Amy Williams, Richard M Thomas Jr.. (Charge To Estate) ($350.00). Complaint to: (1) Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfer; (2) Obtain Declaratory Relief as to Ownership of Real Property; and (3) Authorize Sale of Property Owned in Part by Non-Debtor Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer))


From: 9/26/18, 11/7/18, 12/12/18 Also #9

EH       


Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Defendant(s):

Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Frank X Ruggier

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Richard M. Thomas


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

2:00 PM

6:18-10939


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01100 Zamucen & Curren LLP v. Johnson


#11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01100. Complaint by Zamucen & Curren LLP against Vance Zachary Johnson . (d),(e)))


From: 7/31/18, 10/3/18, 1/9/19 EH   

Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

Defendant(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

Plaintiff(s):

Zamucen & Curren LLP Represented By Patricia J Grace

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

2:00 PM

6:17-20092

Mark Bastorous

Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01064 Gerges et al v. Bastorous et al


#12.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Adversary case 6:18-ap-01064. Complaint by Mona Gerges, Rafet Gerges, St. Mary Properties, LLC against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. False pretenses, False representation, actual fraud, 67- Dischargeability - 523(a)(4); Fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), Willful and malicious injury


From: 5/9/18, 5/16/18, 7/11/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 11/14/18


EH   


Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

Mona Gerges Represented By

Louis J Esbin

Rafat Gerges Represented By

Louis J Esbin

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

St. Mary Properties, LLC Represented By Louis J Esbin

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-19010


Sara Durham


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01020 SCE Federal Credit Union v. Durham


#13.00 Motion for Default Judgment Also #14

EH   


Docket 39

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Sara Durham Represented By

Edgar P Lombera

Defendant(s):

Sara Durham Pro Se

Movant(s):

SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

Bruce P. Needleman

Plaintiff(s):

SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

Bruce P. Needleman

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-19010


Sara Durham


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01020 SCE Federal Credit Union v. Durham


#14.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by SCE Federal Credit Union against Sara Durham. (14 ),(14A) priority tax claims)), 62 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud


From: 3/21/18, 6/27/18, 8/22/18, 10/24/18


Also #13 EH   

Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Sara Durham Represented By

Edgar P Lombera

Defendant(s):

Sara Durham Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

Bruce P. Needleman

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-17749


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01146 Sonnenfeld v. Richardson


#15.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01146. Complaint by Cleo Sonnenfeld against Joshua Cord Richardson. (A)(4), and (A)(6); and to Deny Discharge Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 727(A)(3), and (A)(5) (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(66 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims)) (Masud, Laila)


From: 8/29/18 EH   

Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Defendant(s):

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Plaintiff(s):

Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

2:00 PM

6:17-16417


Robert H Mills, III


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01225 Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. v. Mills, III


#16.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01225. Complaint by Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. against Robert Harry Mills Jr.. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Langley, Christopher)


From: 10/31/18 EH   

Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/24/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Robert H Mills III Represented By

Catherine Christiansen

Defendant(s):

Robert H. Mills III Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-10724

Bausman and Company Incorporated

Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01180 Whitmore v. Sierra Forest Products, Inc. dba Atlas Lumber


#17.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Adversary Complaint by Robert S. Whitmore against Sierra Forest Products, Inc. dba Atlas Lumber. (Charge To Estate

$350.00). Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 91 - Declaratory judgment


From: 11/14/18 EH   

Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Bausman and Company Incorporated Represented By

William A Smelko

Defendant(s):

Sierra Forest Products, Inc. dba Atlas Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Caroline Djang

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By

Best Best & Krieger Caroline Djang

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01163 Revere Financial Corporation v. Burns


#18.00 CONT Motion for Protective Order From: 12/14/18

EH   


Docket 117

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 2/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns

Movant(s):

Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

3:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#19.00 Motion By Defendant Empire Partners, Inc To Compel Complaince With Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Timothy Sullivan, And For Sanctions


EH   


Docket 498

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


Chapter 7

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Paul Roman Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Movant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


P Sabin Willett


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

Michael I Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00105 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#20.00 Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party KPMG LLP, and For Sanctions


Also #21 EH   

Docket 2

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Paul Roman Pro Se

3:00 PM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Pro Se

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00105 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#21.00 Motion for Protective Order re Third Party Subpoena Also #20

EH   


Docket 11

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Paul Roman Pro Se

3:00 PM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

KPMG LLP Represented By

Richard W Esterkin

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Pro Se

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00104 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#22.00 Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party William Haegele, and For Sanctions


EH    


Docket 2

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

Paul Roman Pro Se

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Movant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

3:00 PM

CONT...


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00103 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#23.00 Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Analysis Group, Inc., and For Sanctions


EH   


Docket 2

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Paul Roman Pro Se

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Movant(s):

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

James P Previti Represented By

3:00 PM

CONT...


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 0

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00102 Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al


#24.00 Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Bruce Deal, and For Sanctions


EH   


Docket 6

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners Inc Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Paul Roman Pro Se

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Movant(s):

Empire Partners Inc Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

3:00 PM

CONT...


Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al


Chapter 0

11:00 AM

6:13-18779


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13


#1.00 Motion For Order Denying Discharge Or Dismissing Case EH   

Docket 172

Tentative Ruling:

1/31/19

BACKGROUND


On May 17, 2013, Rigoberto Baez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 25, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was subsequently amended on two occasions.


On December 6, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of final cure mortgage payment. On December 27, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. filed a response, stating that Debtor was

$11,338.57 delinquent in post-confirmation payments.


On December 28, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to deny discharge or, in the alternative, dismiss the case. Because Trustee has only provided legal analysis support dismissal of the case, not citing any legal basis to deny a discharge in this situation, the Court will consider the motion as a motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The opposition asserts that Debtor disputes Wells Fargo’s accounting, and that Debtor will work with Wells Fargo to resolve the situation.


DISCUSSION

11:00 AM

CONT...


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13


As noted by Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(6) states:


(c) Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including ---


(6) material default by the debtor with respect to a term of a confirmed plan


Trustee asserts that direct payments to Wells Fargo are payments under the plan, and the default in this case is material. Debtor has not provided any contrary legal authority on either point. The Court agrees with Trustee that direct payments to a lender are still considered payments under the plan. See, e.g., In Matter of Kessley, 655 Fed. Appx. 242, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); see also In re Evans, 543 B.R. 213 (Bankr.

E.D. Va. 2016) (collecting cases). The Court also agrees that the post-confirmation default of $11,338.57 is material, assuming that that figure is accurate.


TENTATIVE RULING



Debtor to apprise the Court of the status of the post-confirmation delinquency and any efforts to resolve the situation with Wells Fargo. Absent resolution, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13

Rigoberto Baez Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-24888


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Bankruptcy Case From: 1/10/19

EH       


Docket 72

Tentative Ruling:

1/10/19

BACKGROUND


On December 12, 2014, Jesus Simental ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On February 26, 2015, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On May 31, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to submit tax returns or refunds. Debtor did not file an opposition to the motion. After a continuance, no appearance was made on behalf of Debtor at the continued hearing on the motion to dismiss, and the case was dismissed on November 8, 2018.


On November 26, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to vacate the dismissal order on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect. On November 27, 2018, Trustee filed comments indicating disapproval, although the comments could also be characterized as recommending conditional approval. On December 3, 2018, Debtor set the matter for hearing and, on December 4, 2018, Debtor filed a supplemental declaration.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13

DISCUSSION



Debtor relies on FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, which allows for relief from an order based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."


The legal basis for Debtor’s assertion that the dismissal order should be vacated is that Debtor’s counsel inadvertently did not appear at the hearing due to an office error. It is well established, however, that "an attorney’s ignorance and carelessness does not provide grounds for Rule 60(b) relief." In re Mercado, 144 B.R. 879, 886 (Bankr.

C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972). And the mere assertion that counsel did not fulfill its duties, but that such carelessness was inadvertent, is clearly inadequate to support Rule 60(b) relief. See, e.g., In re ACME Motors, Inc., 125 B.R. 702, 703 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1991).


"Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary." Id. Yet, in this Court, a request for relief from a Chapter 13 dismissal order has become ordinary. On occasion, the requests are legally sound. Here, however, the evidence provided simply indicates that Debtor’s counsel did not attend the hearing due to an internal error.


The Supreme Court has stated that:


There is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner’s claim because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962). See also Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009) ("[T] he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds. The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does not present exceptional circumstances."). "Although attorney carelessness can [in certain circumstances] constitute ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney’s somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion conditioned on compliance with the Trustee’s conditions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

Movant(s):

Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-14169


Sally Michelle Greene


Chapter 13


#3.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 5 by Claimant Phillips Chiropractic, Inc..


EH   


Docket 44

Tentative Ruling:

1/31/2019

BACKGROUND:


On May 9, 2016, Sally Greene ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 30, 2016, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On October 19, 2017, Phillips Chiropractic, Inc. ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $5,000 ("Claim 5"). On January 3, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 5. Debtor argues that the Claim 5 was late-filed and must be disallowed. The Court notes that the claims bar deadline in the instant case was September 13, 2016.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim,

11:00 AM

CONT...


Sally Michelle Greene


Chapter 13

that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


Claim 5 was filed more than one year after the claims bar deadline and, as a result, is not timely filed. 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9) provides:


(b) Except as provide in subsections (c)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as

11:00 AM

CONT...


Sally Michelle Greene

of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that –


  1. proof of such claim is not timely filed, except to the extent tardily filed as permitted under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 726(a) of this title or under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, except that a claim of a governmental unit shall be timely filed if it is filed before 180 days after the date of the order for relief or such later time


    Chapter 13

    as the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may provide, and except that in a case under chapter 13, a claim of a governmental unit for a tax with respect to a return filed under section 1308 shall be timely if the claim is filed on or before the date that is 60 days after the date on which such return was filed as required.


    Here, the claims deadline was September 21, 2016. None of the enumerated exceptions being applicable to the instant situation, Claim 5 was filed untimely and must be disallowed pursuant to § 502.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 5 in its entirety.


    APPERANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Sally Michelle Greene Represented By Sunita N Sood

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Sally Michelle Greene


    Chapter 13

    Sally Michelle Greene Represented By Sunita N Sood

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-10273


    Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


    Chapter 13


    #4.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 3974 Quartzite Ln. San Bernardino, CA 92407 and 2013 Hyundai Sonata with supporting declaration


    MOVANT: MAISHA L GHANT-ELLIE


    EH   


    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    1/31/2019


    The Court notes that the instant motion indicates that it is being heard on regular notice, yet the matter was set on shortened (16 days) notice. Regarding the merits of the motion, it does appear that Debtor has provided clear and convincing evidence of a change in financial circumstances sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of bad faith.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady

    Movant(s):

    Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady John F Brady John F Brady

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19628


    Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


    Chapter 13


    #5.00 Motion for Order Determining Value of Collateral Also #5.1

    EH   


    Docket 26

    Tentative Ruling:

    1/31/2019

    BACKGROUND

    On November 13, 2018, Reynaldo Perez & Gatziry Zeledon ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2008 Lincoln Navigator (the "Property"). Wells Fargo Dealer Services ("Creditor") has a security interest in the Property. On December 27, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to determine the value of the property. Debtor requests that the Property be valued at $8,950, leaving the balance of the claim, $7,699, unsecured. On January 22, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $15,384.63, identifying $13,375 as secured by the Property.

    DISCUSSION

    One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon

    Chapter 13


    Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that retail value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


    According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


    Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report indicating that the private party value of the Property is $8,950. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


    Tentative Ruling:


    The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Reynaldo Perez Represented By

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


    Paul Y Lee


    Chapter 13

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19628


    Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


    Chapter 13


    #5.10 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/17/19, 1/24/19

    Also #5 EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19233


    Yair Salvador Carranza Contreras


    Chapter 13


    #6.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/10/19

    EH    


    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Yair Salvador Carranza Contreras Represented By

    Lionel E Giron

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-18622


    Jackie May Zapata


    Chapter 13


    #7.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/29/18

    EH    


    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jackie May Zapata Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19936


    Kalake Monisoni Toutai


    Chapter 13


    #8.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Kalake Monisoni Toutai Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19939


    Eddie Rolison


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Eddie Rolison Represented By Julie J Villalobos

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19950


    Cary Michael Clark and Trisha Lynn Clark


    Chapter 13


    #10.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Cary Michael Clark Represented By Dana Travis

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Trisha Lynn Clark Represented By Dana Travis

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19956


    Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff


    Chapter 13


    #11.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Herman A. Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Monica Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19959


    Jose Luis Vallejo


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose Luis Vallejo Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19960


    Ignacio Diaz


    Chapter 13


    #13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ignacio Diaz Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19965


    Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


    Chapter 13


    #14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19969


    Daniel Porche and Leta Lorraine Porche


    Chapter 13


    #15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Daniel Porche Represented By Dana Travis

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Leta Lorraine Porche Represented By Dana Travis

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19970


    Randy Radford


    Chapter 13


    #16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Randy Radford Represented By Michael Avanesian

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-19973


    Rosalva Perez Camacho


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/17/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Rosalva Perez Camacho Represented By Anthony P Cara

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20002


    Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


    Chapter 13


    #18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20008


    Catalina J Alvarez


    Chapter 13


    #19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Catalina J Alvarez Represented By Julie J Villalobos

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20034


    Gloria L Watson


    Chapter 13


    #20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Gloria L Watson Represented By Leonard J Cravens

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20051


    Antonio Navarro Gomez and Francisca Navarro


    Chapter 13


    #21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Antonio Navarro Gomez Represented By

    James Geoffrey Beirne

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Francisca Navarro Represented By

    James Geoffrey Beirne

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20070


    Alexander J Perfinowicz and Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz


    Chapter 13


    #22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Alexander J Perfinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20105


    Darrel Jay Rumsey and Fe Eruela Rumsey


    Chapter 13


    #23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Darrel Jay Rumsey Represented By Norma Duenas

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Fe Eruela Rumsey Represented By Norma Duenas

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20113


    Lorena Zermeno


    Chapter 13


    #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Lorena Zermeno Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20114


    John Harred and Luzmaria Montes


    Chapter 13


    #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    John Harred Represented By

    Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Luzmaria Montes Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20153


    Miguel Angel Lopez


    Chapter 13


    #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Miguel Angel Lopez Represented By Barry E Borowitz

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20164


    Basel Ghandour


    Chapter 13


    #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Basel Ghandour Represented By Tom A Moore

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20165


    Pablo Cornejo


    Chapter 13


    #28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/17/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Pablo Cornejo Represented By Ivan Trahan

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20173


    Lawrence Clayton Thompkins


    Chapter 13


    #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Lawrence Clayton Thompkins Represented By William J Smyth Stephen S Smyth

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20176


    Garry Kenneth Frazier


    Chapter 13


    #30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Garry Kenneth Frazier Represented By John F Brady

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20232


    Diana Marie Perrone


    Chapter 13


    #31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Diana Marie Perrone Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20236


    Carlos Rizo and Desiree Santistevan


    Chapter 13


    #32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Carlos Rizo Represented By

    Erika Luna

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Desiree Santistevan Represented By Erika Luna

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20238


    Efrain Padron


    Chapter 13


    #33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20245


    Jennifer Lynn Miller


    Chapter 13


    #34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jennifer Lynn Miller Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20246


    Buckleigh Xavier Pruitt and Donna Lee Pruitt


    Chapter 13


    #35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Buckleigh Xavier Pruitt Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Donna Lee Pruitt Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20264


    Veronica Montes


    Chapter 13


    #36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Veronica Montes Represented By Nathan Fransen

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20274


    Robert Townsend


    Chapter 13


    #37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Townsend Represented By

    David A Akintimoye

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20292


    Humberto Vergara


    Chapter 13


    #38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Humberto Vergara Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20296


    Daniel Lee Crump


    Chapter 13


    #39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20298


    Ronald P Cohen and Julia A Cohen


    Chapter 13


    #40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Ronald P Cohen Represented By James T Lillard

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Julia A Cohen Represented By James T Lillard

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20305


    Patti Sue Shapiro


    Chapter 13


    #41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Patti Sue Shapiro Represented By Christopher Hewitt

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-18415


    Donna Denise Upton


    Chapter 13


    #42.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/29/18

    EH    


    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Donna Denise Upton Represented By Seema N Sood

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:14-20076


    Delfina Ramos Hernandez


    Chapter 13


    #43.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 88

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/23/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Delfina Ramos Hernandez Represented By Edward G Topolski

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:14-22362


    James Lange and Michelle Lange


    Chapter 13


    #44.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 167


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    James Lange Represented By

    Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Michelle Lange Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:14-23150


    Vivian Munson


    Chapter 13


    #45.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/23/18, 8/23/18, 10/25/18

    EH   


    Docket 218


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Vivian Munson Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:16-12453


    Michael Joseph Fodor


    Chapter 13


    #46.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 66


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Michael Joseph Fodor Represented By Michael D Franco

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:16-13030


    Richard Hill Lindsay and Laura Lee Lindsay


    Chapter 13


    #47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 118

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/27/18

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Richard Hill Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Laura Lee Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-13239


    Gerald Bauer


    Chapter 13


    #48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 35


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Gerald Bauer Represented By

    Daniel King

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-13290


    Joseph Frank Garcia and Roberta Ann Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #49.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19

    EH   


    Docket 37

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/30/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joseph Frank Garcia Represented By Dana Travis

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Roberta Ann Garcia Represented By Dana Travis

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-13583


    William J Schaefer and Jennifer L. Schaefer


    Chapter 13


    #50.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 51


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    William J Schaefer Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Jennifer L. Schaefer Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-13599


    Maurice Frank Manceau


    Chapter 13


    #51.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19

    EH   


    Docket 92


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-14549


    Denice Laree Grimes and Derrick Gregory Grimes


    Chapter 13


    #52.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/8/18, 12/20/18

    EH   


    Docket 42


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Denice Laree Grimes Represented By

    M. Wayne Tucker

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Derrick Gregory Grimes Represented By

    M. Wayne Tucker

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-14972


    Jude Okwor


    Chapter 13


    #53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 43


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jude Okwor Represented By

    Javier H Castillo

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-15660


    Guillermina Perez


    Chapter 13


    #54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case due to Infeasibility of plan EH   

    Docket 37


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Guillermina Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-15662


    Jemill M Humphrey


    Chapter 13


    #55.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 42


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-10637


    Felipe Gonzalez Plasencia


    Chapter 13


    #56.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19

    EH   


    Docket 36

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/23/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Felipe Gonzalez Plasencia Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-11081


    Stephen Daniel Payan


    Chapter 13


    #57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 36


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Stephen Daniel Payan Represented By Paul J Kurtzhall

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-13793


    Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno


    Chapter 13


    #58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH    

    Docket 36

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/29/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-14761


    Reginald D. Caldwell


    Chapter 13


    #59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 35


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Reginald D. Caldwell Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-14775


    Ann Marie Pearson


    Chapter 13


    #60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 24

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/28/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ann Marie Pearson Represented By Barry E Borowitz

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-11476


    Randy Saulsberry and Kimberly E May


    Chapter 13


    #61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

    Docket 40


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Randy Saulsberry Represented By David L Nelson

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Kimberly E May Represented By David L Nelson

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-12397


    Robert Nelson


    Chapter 13


    #62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

    Docket 35


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Nelson Represented By David L Nelson

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-12118


    Veronica A Mendoza


    Chapter 13


    #63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

    Docket 58


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Veronica A Mendoza Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:16-10066


    Saul Lara Sanchez


    Chapter 13


    #64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 67


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Saul Lara Sanchez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:13-18557


    Michael Anthony Clay and Brenda Ann Clay


    Chapter 13


    #65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 285


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Michael Anthony Clay Represented By Dana Travis

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Brenda Ann Clay Represented By Dana Travis

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-15026


    Joe R Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 38


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Joe R Garcia Represented By

    Neil R Hedtke

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10508


    Albert Sandoval


    Chapter 7


    #1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: Real Property 225 S. I St, San Bernardino


    MOVANT: I STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC


    EH   


    Docket 6


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Albert Sandoval Represented By Glenn Park

    Movant(s):

    I Street Investments LLC Represented By William E Windham

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10484


    Xavier C. Luna


    Chapter 13


    #2.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


    MOVANT: XAVIER C. LUNA


    EH   


    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    The Debtor has provided sufficient evidence that he has made efforts to correct the issues which resulted in the dismissal of his prior case. Specifically, the Debtor has provided evidence that the dismissal was, in large part, a consequence of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Debtor’s retention of new counsel for the instant case and the additional evidence of feasibility are sufficient to warrant continuance of the stay.

    The Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Xavier C. Luna Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Movant(s):

    Xavier C. Luna Represented By Christopher J Langley

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Xavier C. Luna


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10415


    Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


    Chapter 13


    #3.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


    MOVANT: LEWIS K CHISM AND LATOYA A CHISM


    EH   


    Docket 12


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    At the confirmation hearing in their prior case, the Debtors requested ten days to convert their case to a case under chapter 7. The Court ordered that the case be converted within ten days otherwise the case would be dismissed. On September 24, 2018, having failed to convert the case, the case was dismissed.


    In his declaration, the Debtor Husband explains that the claims came in higher than anticipated and he was not able to propose a feasible plan. Subsequent to dismissal, the Debtor Husband settled a workman’s compensation case and was awarded

    $50,000. The Debtors have used the funds to cure the arrears owed to the mortgage lender. With the arrears on the secured claim eliminated, the Debtors assert they are now able to propose a feasible plan.


    The Debtors have presented sufficient evidence to warrant continuance of the automatic stay.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


    Chapter 13

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Movant(s):

    Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10370


    Jorge Avendano Sosa


    Chapter 13


    #4.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 15405 Bello Way Moreno Valley, CA 92555


    MOVANT: JORGE AVENDANO SOSA


    EH   


    Docket 7


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    The Debtor’s declaration and schedules in the current and prior case indicate that the Debtor has found new employment, and that the Debtor’s new position results in higher net disposable income than in the prior case. Based on the foregoing, the Debtor has met his burden to demonstrate cause for continuance of the stay by clear and convincing evidence and the Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion.


    There is, however, separately a service issue. Debtor served Wells Fargo at the correct address for the institution but instead of serving it to the attention of an officer as required under FRBP 7004(h), the Debtor indicated that he was serving the document on CSC, the agent for service of process for Wells Fargo. CSC has its own separate institutional address.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jorge Avendano Sosa Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Jorge Avendano Sosa


    Chapter 13

    Jorge Avendano Sosa Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10067


    Carolise Lynn Armstead


    Chapter 7


    #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 3100 Van Buren Blvd., #927, Riverside, CA 92503


    MOVANT: 3100 VAN BUREN BOULEVARD APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC


    EH   


    Docket 14


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Carolise Lynn Armstead Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    3100 VAN BUREN BOULEVARD Represented By

    Scott Andrews

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20343


    Willie Clay Johnson and Dianna Marie Johnson


    Chapter 7


    #6.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 GMC Terrain, VIN: 2GKFLVE35G6208270


    MOVANT: ACAR LEASING LTD dba GM FINANCIAL LEASING


    EH   


    Docket 11


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for APO as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Willie Clay Johnson Represented By Edgar P Lombera

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Dianna Marie Johnson Represented By Edgar P Lombera

    Movant(s):

    ACAR Leasing LTD d/b/a GM Represented By Jennifer H Wang

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Willie Clay Johnson and Dianna Marie Johnson


    Chapter 7

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-15192


    Everett T Cain


    Chapter 13


    #7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1110 West Menlo Avenue, Hemet,

    CA-92543


    MOVANT: CITIBANK N.A.


    EH   


    Docket 34


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶3 of prayer for relief and DENY request for APO as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Everett T Cain Represented By April E Roberts

    Movant(s):

    Citibank, N.A. Represented By Sean C Ferry

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-14761


    Reginald D. Caldwell


    Chapter 13


    #8.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 34524 Devlin Dr, Beaumont, CA 92223


    MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK


    From: 12/4/18, 1/8/19 EH   

    Docket 33

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/1/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    12/4/2018

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 3 and 12.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Reginald D. Caldwell Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

    Movant(s):

    MidFirst Bank Represented By Nancy L Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-14725


    Percylyn Agustin Basa


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14623 Meadowsweet Dr Eastvale, CA 92880


    MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR COOPER


    From: 1/8/19 EH   

    Docket 56


    Tentative Ruling:

    1/8/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

    Movant to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Percylyn Agustin Basa Represented By Benjamin R Heston

    Movant(s):

    Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

    Angie M Marth

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-11701


    Wayne Anthony King and Traci Ann Zweck


    Chapter 13


    #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6580 Valinda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737


    MOVANT: DITECH FINANCIAL LLC


    EH   


    Docket 59


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


    The Debtors propose an APO to resolve the Motion. Parties to update the Court regarding the status of negotiations.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Wayne Anthony King Represented By Dana Travis

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Traci Ann Zweck Represented By Dana Travis

    Movant(s):

    Ditech Financial LLC Represented By Jamie D Hanawalt Caren J Castle

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Wayne Anthony King and Traci Ann Zweck


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-10850


    Eugene Peter Roman, Jr. and Sylvia Roman


    Chapter 13


    #11.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15346 Bolero Dr, Fontana, CA 92337


    MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC


    EH   


    Docket 32


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶3 of prayer for relief and DENY request for APO as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Eugene Peter Roman Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Sylvia Roman Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By Robert P Zahradka

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Eugene Peter Roman, Jr. and Sylvia Roman


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-20114


    Frank Garcia and Susan Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2805 Mirada Road, Highland, California 92346


    MOVANT: PRIME LENDING


    EH   


    Docket 51

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/4/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Frank Garcia Represented By

    Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Susan Garcia Represented By

    Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    PrimeLending A PlainsCapital Represented By

    Diana Torres-Brito Alexander G Meissner

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-15604


    Mandy Catron


    Chapter 13


    #13.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2875 West June Place, San Bernardino, CA 92407


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK NA


    EH   


    Docket 57


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay and GRANT requests for relief under ¶¶ 3 and 12 of the prayer for relief. DENY request for relief from the co-debtor stay for lack of cause shown and DENY request for APO as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mandy Catron Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

    Movant(s):

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Darlene C Vigil

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-14908


    Joan Eleanor Demiany


    Chapter 13


    #14.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1055 East Via Colusa, Palm Springs, CA 92262


    MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY From: 9/11/18, 10/30/18, 12/18/18

    EH   


    Docket 35

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/26/19 AT 10:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    10/30/2018


    The Movant submitted evidence that the Debtor is delinquent in the amount of

    $30,303.59, having missed 10 postconfirmation payments. The parties stipulated toa continuance of the hearing from September 11, 2018 to this date. The primary basis of opposition appears to be regarding the status of a loan modification application.

    Parties to update the Court.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joan Eleanor Demiany Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Movant(s):

    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL Represented By

    Sean C Ferry

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-14228


    Michelle Meredith


    Chapter 7


    #15.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 102 Tesori Drive, Palm Desert, California 92211


    MOVANT: OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC


    From: 11/6/18 EH   

    Docket 128


    Tentative Ruling:

    11/6/2018


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Movant’s sole legal basis for its request for relief from the automatic stay is that Movant is not protected by an adequate equity cushion. As noted by Trustee in its opposition, however, the equity cushion in this case is above the range required by Mellor and related case law. Therefore, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the motion for Trustee to market and sell the property.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Michelle Meredith Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC Represented By Sean C Ferry

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Michelle Meredith


    Chapter 7

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Noreen A Madoyan Meghann A Triplett

    10:00 AM

    6:17-13649


    Fernando Fabrigas, Sr. and Estela F. Fabrigas


    Chapter 7


    #16.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 231 Arden Street, Hemet, CA 92543


    MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


    From: 7/31/18, 10/30/18, 1/8/19 EH   

    Docket 75


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Fernando Fabrigas Sr. Represented By

    R Creig Greaves Kevin Tang

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Estela F. Fabrigas Represented By

    R Creig Greaves Kevin Tang

    Movant(s):

    FREEDOM MORTGAGE Represented By Jason C Kolbe Nancy L Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Fernando Fabrigas, Sr. and Estela F. Fabrigas

    Rika Kido


    Chapter 7

    10:00 AM

    6:16-18082


    Joseph John Vargas and Lydia Vargas


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 21341 Shakespeare Court, Moreno, Valley, California 92557


    MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    EH   


    Docket 104


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: Yes

    Parties to update Court regarding the status of APO negotiations, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joseph John Vargas Represented By Dana Travis

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Lydia Vargas Represented By

    Dana Travis

    Movant(s):

    U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Sean C Ferry

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:16-10840


    Joanne Casillas


    Chapter 13


    #18.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 8076 Bluff View Ln, Corona CA 92880


    MOVANT: US BANK NA


    EH   


    Docket 66

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/29/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joanne Casillas Represented By Paul Horn

    Movant(s):

    U.S. Bank N.A., as trustee, on behalf Represented By

    Daniel K Fujimoto Sonia Plesset Edwards Caren J Castle

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:15-13346


    Chris Maddox and Christie Michelle Maddox


    Chapter 13


    #19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13172 San Rafel Drive, Chino Hills, CA 91709


    MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC


    CASE DISMISSED 2/5/19


    EH   


    Docket 81


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay and GRANT request under ¶3 of prayer for relief.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Chris Maddox Represented By Sanaz S Bereliani

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Christie Michelle Maddox Represented By Sanaz S Bereliani

    Movant(s):

    BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Chris Maddox and Christie Michelle Maddox

    Edward G Schloss


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Lexus RX350


    MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


    Also #21 EH       

    Docket 198


    Tentative Ruling:

    02/05/2019

    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY relief under § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    Movant(s):

    Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Represented By

    Austin P Nagel

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 BMW X5 Utility 4D 35i 2WD


    MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST


    Also #20 EH   

    Docket 190

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/31/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    Movant(s):

    Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By

    Cheryl A Skigin

    2:00 PM

    6:17-19936


    Auto Strap Transport, LLC


    Chapter 11


    #22.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 1/9/18, 4/10/18, 7/10/18, 7/24/18, 8/14/18, 10/30/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18,

    1/8/19


    EH   


    Docket 48

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/31/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Auto Strap Transport, LLC Represented By Todd L Turoci

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12807


    G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


    Chapter 11


    #23.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: Caterpillar Construction Equipment


    MOVANT: CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION


    EH   


    Docket 139

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

    2/1/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

    Movant(s):

    Caterpillar Financial Services Represented By

    Mark D Poniatowski

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12807


    G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01237 G Hurtado Construction, Inc. v. Catano et al


    #24.00 Status Conference re Adversary case 6:18-ap-01237. Complaint by G Hurtado Construction, Inc. against Juan Catano, Faustino Magana, Donahoo & Associates, PC. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). -CLAIM OBJECTIONS Nature of Suit: 14 - Recovery of money/property - other, 91- Declaratory judgment


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

    Defendant(s):

    Juan Catano Pro Se

    Faustino Magana Pro Se

    Donahoo & Associates, PC Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones

    2:00 PM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #25.00 Debtor's Motion for Order Authorizing Entry Into Amendment to Subcontract Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 363(b) OR (c), Approving Compromise of Disputes Pursuant to FRBP 9019 and Modifying the Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d)(1)


    EH   


    Docket 166


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:18-16149


    Richard Garavito


    Chapter 11


    #26.00 CONT Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case


    From: 9/25/18, 10/1/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18, 1/15/19


    Also #27 & #28 EH    

    Docket 37

    Tentative Ruling:

    9/25/2018

    BACKGROUND


    On July 23, 2018, Richard Garavito ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor previously filed a Chapter 13 case on April 17, 2018, which was dismissed on July 19, 2018.


    On August 29, 2018, the Taylor Family Trust of June 16, 2004 ("Creditor"), the primary creditor in the instant case, filed a motion to confirm that the automatic stay terminated pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). On September 7, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to continue/impose the automatic stay. Because Debtor has not offered a cognizable legal argument as to why the automatic stay has not terminated, or why Debtor can obtain a continuation of the automatic stay after the statutory deadline, the Court has posted tentative rulings indicating that it intends to grant Creditor’s motion and deny Debtor’s motion.


    On September 11, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the case and an application

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard Garavito


    Chapter 11

    shortening time. On September 13, 2018, the Court approved the application shortening time, and set a hearing for September 25, 2018.


    DISCUSSION



    11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) states:


    Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c), on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause unless the court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.


    11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4) provides a non-exclusive list of sixteen examples of cause – most of which are more appropriately considered when the moving party is an entity other than the debtor.


    Here, Debtor’s motion is unclear, at best. The entire argument why the case should be dismissed is reproduced, verbatim, as follows:


    In the present case, since the motion to impose and/or continue the stay was not timely filed, the stay will no longer be in effect with the pending motion to terminate the stay filed by secured creditor Taylor Family Trust.


    The Debtor should not be penalized due to counsel’s inadvertent calendaring

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard Garavito


    Chapter 11

    error of the 30 days rule of filing a motion to impose and/or continue the stay. However, an argument can be made that under the majority approach a motion to impose or continue the stay shall be filed as to the Debtor individually and not as to the property of the estate. Here, the Subject Property is property of the estate and the automatic stay should be in effect as to the Subject Property.


    However, due to circumstances surrounding the possible termination of the stay, the Debtor requests dismissal of this case as there is no purpose if the stay is not in effect as to the Subject Property.


    [Dkt. No. 37, pg. 5]. In summary, Debtor acknowledges that the stay has statutorily terminated and the deadline to continue the automatic stay has lapsed, but then argues that such stay termination is with regards to the Debtor only, not property of the estate. Despite the argument, the Debtor then asserts that due to "circumstances" the Debtor requests dismissal because there is "no purpose" if the stay has also terminated as to property of the estate.


    There are multiple issues with the above line of argument. First, Debtor does not appear to have raised any coherent cause for dismissal – the only argument made in favor of dismissal, that the "Subject Property" is not protected by the automatic stay, (and thus this Chapter 11 case cannot be successful) is also explicitly rejected by Debtor. Second, § 1112(b) requires the Court to consider whether dismissal or conversion to Chapter 7 is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. Here, Debtor’s schedules filed in the instant case indicate that all creditors would likely be paid in full if this case was converted to Chapter 7. Therefore, pursuant to the analysis required by § 1112(b), it is unclear why this case would be dismissed rather than converted to Chapter 7.


    Finally, the Court acknowledges that, in a reply relating to its motion to confirm that the automatic stay has terminated, Creditor has requested that, if the case is dismissed, Debtor be restricted from re-filing by a bar. While raising this argument in a reply relating to a different motion is procedurally improper, the Court need not address the request at the current time given the issues above.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard Garavito


    Chapter 11



    TENTATIVE RULING



    Debtor and Creditor to argue: (1) whether there is cause for dismissal; (2) whether the automatic stay is in effect as to the Subject Property; and (3) whether dismissal or conversion to Chapter 7 would be in the best interests of creditors.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

    Movant(s):

    Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

    2:00 PM

    6:18-16149


    Richard Garavito


    Chapter 11


    #27.00 CONT Motion (1) Authorizing sale of real property located at 5065 Brooks Street, Montclair, California, free and clear of liens, claims and interests, (2) Confirming sale to third party or the highest qualified bidder and approving overbid procedures; and (3) Determining that buyer is a good faith purchaser


    From: 1/15/19 Also #26 & #28 EH   

    Docket 81


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

    Movant(s):

    Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

    2:00 PM

    6:18-16149


    Richard Garavito


    Chapter 11


    #28.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 8/21/18, 10/16/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18, 1/15/19


    Also #26 & #27 EH       

    Docket 7


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #29.00 CONT Motion for approval of chapter 11 disclosure statement

    (Holding Date)


    From: 8/21/18, 10/23/18, 11/27/18 Also #30

    EH   


    Docket 78

    Tentative Ruling:

    8/21/18


    1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


      On January 26, 2018, Markus Boyd ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On February 13, 2018, the Court entered an interim order approving use of cash collateral. On March 6, 2018, the Court entered orders (1) authorizing Debtor to provide adequate assurance of payment to utility service providers and; (2) approving a budget. On March 26, 2018, the Court authorized the employment of Nicholas Gebelt as counsel for Debtor. On April 26, 2018, the Court disallowed four claims of American Express (claim numbers 2 and 4-6).


      On June 22, 2018, Debtor filed its disclosure statement and Chapter 11 plan. On August 7, 2018, UST filed a limited objection to Debtor’s disclosure statement.


    2. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Markus Anthony Boyd


      Chapter 11


      In addition to the disclosure statement, the following exhibits are included: (1) "Treatment of Claims/Interests" (Exhibit A); (2) "Executory Contracts & Unexpired Leases" (Exhibit B); (3) "Cash Flow Projections" (Exhibit C); (4) "Recent Financial History" (Exhibit D); (5) "Secured Claims" (Exhibit E); (6) "General Unsecured Claims, in Class 4A or 4B" (Exhibit F); "Liquidating Analysis" (Exhibit G); "Endnotes/Continuation Sheets" (which includes a supplement) (Exhibit H). Debtor has used the Court’s optional disclosure statement form and worksheets, and, therefore, the format of the disclosure statement is adequate.


      The Chapter 11 Plan’s proposed effective date is October 21, 2018. There are four classes of claims and four listed categories of unclassified claims1:


      1. Class 1: Arrears secured by real property -- $174,971.67 claim, Debtor proposes to pay over 60 months. Debtor’s Exhibit A contains a row for arrears on the second and third deeds of trust, but does not identify any amount owing.


      2. Class 2: Additional claims secured by real property – Debtor lists three different claims within this class. Debtor proposes to continue paying his mortgage (identified as $772,733.45)2, over 230 months and at 2% interest. Debtor proposes to cure his delinquency on HOA dues over 60 months. Debtor has included a row for, presumably, future HOA dues but no amount is listed. Nor is it clear that this class is truly unimpaired.

      3. Class 3: Priority claims: Debtor’s plan does not list any claims in class 3

      4. Class 4: General Unsecured – $45,151.20, Debtor proposes to pay over 60 months.


        1. Type 1: UST fees ($650) – paid in full on effective date

        2. Type 2: Taxes (IRS) – approximately $80k, paid over 51 months

        3. Type 3: Taxes (FTB) –$5,651.86, paid over 51 months

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Markus Anthony Boyd

        4. Type 4: Nicholas Gebelt’s fees ($30k)—paid in full on effective date

        5. Type 5: Accountant’s fees – none listed


    3. LEGAL ANALYSIS


    A. Adequate Information


    Chapter 11



    A Chapter 11 disclosure statement is required to contain "adequate information" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1125(b). Section 1125(f)(2) provides that: "the court may approve a disclosure statement submitted on standard forms approved by the court or adopted under section 2075 of title 28." The Central District of California has devised a disclosure statement template, Form 3017-1.CH11.DISCLSR.STMT, which Debtor generally adopted as to format.


    As to the substance of a disclosure statement, 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) defines "adequate information" as:


    information of a kind, and in sufficient detail as far as is reasonably practicable in light of the nature and history of the debtor and the condition of the debtor’s books and records, including a discussion of the potential material Federal tax consequences of the plan to the debtor, any successor to the debtor, and a hypothetical investor typical of the holders of claims or interests in the case, that would enable such a hypothetical investor of the relevant class to make an informed judgment about the plan, but adequate information need not include such information about any other possible or proposed plan and in determining whether a disclosure statement provides adequate information, the court shall consider the complexity of the case, the benefit of additional information to creditors and other parties in interest, and the cost of providing additional information

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    The type of information required varies with the circumstances. See, e.g., In re Jeppson, 66 B.R. 269, 292 (Bankr. D. Utah 1986) (listing nineteen categories of information commonly required); see also In re Malek, 35 B.R. 443, 443-44 (Bankr.

    E.D. Mich. 1983) (listing minimum requirements).


    While Debtor has utilized Court approved forms and has clearly delineated the treatment of the varying claims, the disclosure statement simply lacks the information necessary to evaluate Debtor’s financial situation and determine the probability of the plan’s success. First of all, as noted by UST, Debtor’s practice appears to have been not to withhold taxes on earned income. Second of all, the limited financial information provided by Debtor indicates his income fluctuates drastically. The four months of "recent financial history" (Exhibit D) including in the disclosure statement note the following monthly receipts:


    1) $4,559 (February) (the corresponding monthly operating report lists receipts of

    $51.89)

    2) $32,591 (March)

    3) $15,541 (April)

    4) $35,626 (May)


    Additionally, a monthly operating report for June, filed after the disclosure statement, identifies receipts in the amount of $1,801.11. The limited financial history provided supports UST’s assertion that: "Debtor’s tax liabilities are a significant risk factor given that the monthly operating reports reflect that the Debtor averages between

    $18-$19,000 in monthly net income – much less than the $30,000 reported in the Disclosure Statement’s cash flow projections." Indeed, using that $18-$19,000 figure, if one assumes that the receipts are before tax and that Debtor will ultimately be unsuccessful in the pending adversary proceeding, it would appear that the proposed plan may be infeasible. In any event, the financial information provided in the disclosure statement is grossly inadequate for an evaluation of the prospects of the

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11

    proposed plan. The information simply does not allow for a reasonably accurate estimation of Debtor’s income and expenses moving forward.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #30.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 3/20/18, 8/21/18, 10/23/18, 11/27/18


    Also #29 EH   

    Docket 16


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19805


    Fernando Martinez Estrada


    Chapter 7


    #1.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Altura Credit Union re 2016 Nissan Pathfinder


    EH   


    Docket 8


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Fernando Martinez Estrada Represented By Lauren M Foley

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:10-11814


    Scott Leon Bosco and Karen Lee Bosco


    Chapter 7


    #2.00 CONT Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation From: 12/5/18, 12/11/18

    EH   


    Docket 41


    Tentative Ruling:

    12/11/2018

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    11 U.S.C. § 326(a) states:


    In a case under chapter 7 or 11, the court may allow reasonable compensation under section 330 of this title of the trustee for the trustee’s services, payable after the trustee renders such services, not to exceed 25 percent on the first

    $5,000 or less, 10 percent on any amount in excess of $5,000 but not in excess of $50,000, 5 percent on any amount in excess of $50,000 but not in excess of

    $1,000,000, and reasonable compensation not to exceed 3 percent of any moneys in excess of $1,000,000, upon all moneys disbursed or turned over in the case by the trustee to parties in interest, excluding the debtor, but including holders of secured claims.


    (emphasis added).


    Trustee is basing his requested compensation in this case on $185,000 in "receipts," but that amount includes $72,908.11 paid to Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC which does not appear properly categorized as a receipt because these moneys were not, at any time, held or administered by Trustee, let alone received by Trustee, or disbursed by Trustee. Specifically, paragraph 8 of the motion to approve settlement [Dkt. No. 2] indicates that the costs and expenses of certain status litigation were to be paid directly by the settlement fund trustee, and only the remaining funds would

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Scott Leon Bosco and Karen Lee Bosco


    Chapter 7

    actually be received by the Chapter 7 Trustee. To wit:


    Subject to the terms of the settlement being satisfied, the balance of the remaining settlement proceeds, after the Settlement Fund Trustee pays and/or withholds the necessary expenses, fees, costs, holdbacks, and deductions from the Gross Settlement Amount, anticipated to be in the amount of $97,897.75 (the "Remaining Proceeds") shall be disbursed from the Settlement Fund Trustee to the Trustee.


    Not only are the requested fees simply incompatible with the plain language of the statute, which calculates fees based on moneys disbursed or turned over by the trustee, the fees cannot be reasonably justified on policy grounds. In this case, the state court counsel incurred significant legal fees litigating a state court matter while the instant bankruptcy was closed. The state court counsel’s work on this matter was, in no matter whatsoever, related to the administration of the bankruptcy estate, and Trustee did not participate in, direct, or even have an awareness of the fees incurred. Case law notes that important distinction:


    The reported decisions construing section 326(a) have recognized a distinction between funds that are constructively received and funds that are actually received. These cases stand for the proposition that a commission can only be calculated upon the funds actually received by the trustee. In this particular case, the trustee never received any settlement proceeds that were paid directly to the debtor’s personal injury counsel in fees and expenses or to the worker’s compensation carrier.


    In re Guido, 237 B.R. 562, 564-65 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1999) (citations omitted); see also Kandel v. Alexander Leasing Corp., 107 B.R. 548 (N.D. Ohio 1988) (proceeds of settlement were not "money disbursed" where the trustee cannot point to any time at which the moneys actually passed through his hands); In re New England Fish Co., 34

    B.R. 899, 902 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1983) ("[I]n view of the majority of the cases under prior law and the plain and unambiguous wording of section 326(a), this Court concludes that the trustee’s compensation must be based on actual monies disbursed

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Scott Leon Bosco and Karen Lee Bosco


    Chapter 7

    to parties in interest, and not on assets or settlements which can be construed as a constructive disbursement.").


    In light of the foregoing, the Court is inclined to reduce the basis upon which Trustee’s statutory fee is calculated, eliminating those amounts which were at no time administered, held, received, or disbursed by Trustee. The remaining cognizable disbursements appear to be a bank service fee of $117.34, Trustee’s expenses in the amount of $778.22, and payments to creditors in the amount of $4,027.61, for an aggregate amount of $4,923.17. Therefore, the Court is inclined to approve Trustee’s fees in the reduced amount of $1,230.79. The Court has reviewed the itemized expenses filed by Trustee, and finding them reasonable, the Court is inclined to approve the expenses in the amount of $778.22


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED. If Applicant submits on the tentative, Applicant’s appearance is waived.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Scott Leon Bosco Represented By Richard H Travis Dana Travis

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Karen Lee Bosco Represented By Richard H Travis Dana Travis

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Justin Witkin

    11:00 AM

    6:14-15412


    Laura Castillo


    Chapter 7


    #3.00 Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case EH   

    Docket 37

    Tentative Ruling:

    2/6/19

    BACKGROUND

    On April 25, 2014, Laura Castillo ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On August 4, 2014, Debtor received a discharge, and the case was closed the next day.

    On February 17, 2015, Debtor filed a motion to reopen. The motion was granted, and the case was reopened on April 21, 2015. On June 19, 2015, Debtor filed a motion to avoid lien. On August 28, 2015, the motion was denied for failure to provide adequate evidence regarding the validity and amount of the first lien on the subject real property. On September 14, 2015, the case was closed again. On November 2, 2015, Debtor filed another motion to reopen case, although the document filed with the Court was actually just an attachment to a proof of service. The next day, Debtor filed an amended motion, but attempted to set the matter for hearing in the wrong courtroom, resulting in no hearing being set. On November 30, 2015, Debtor amended the motion again. Ultimately, on January 12, 2016, the case was reopened again. On April 4, 2016, Debtor filed another motion to avoid lien. On May 20, 2016, this second motion to avoid lien was denied for improper service. The Court also noted that on the merits, the motion could not be granted in its entirety. On June 22, 2016, the case was closed again.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Laura Castillo

    Chapter 7

    On December 27, 2018, Debtor filed a third motion to reopen case.

    DISCUSSION


    11 U.S.C. § 350(b) states: "A case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause." Debtor’s motion indicates that she wishes to reopen the case to attempt to file another motion to avoid lien.


    Motions to reopen bankruptcy cases "should be routinely granted." In re Dodge, 138

    B.R. 602, 605 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1992). "While the Code does not define ‘other cause’ for purposes of reopening a case under section 350(b), the decision to reopen is discretionary with the court, which may consider numerous factors, including equitable concerns, and ought to emphasize substance over technical considerations." 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 350.03[5] (16th ed. 2016). This Court routinely grants motions to reopen to allow debtors to file motions to avoid liens, as the avoidance of such lien could be characterized as affording relief to the debtor.


    Nevertheless, the Court is concerned with the fact that repeated delays and errors have resulted in Debtor attempting to avoid the lien of Cach, LLC, over a period of three and a half years. While the Court is inclined to grant the instant motion to reopen, counsel is cautioned to carefully and competently review the subsequent motion to avoid lien.


    The Court notes that the motion does not request authority to amend the schedules, and it is not clear if such amendment is necessary for the relief sought.


    TENTATIVE RULING

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Laura Castillo


    Chapter 7


    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion and REOPEN the case for a period of sixty days.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Laura Castillo Represented By Salvatore Bommarito

    Movant(s):

    Laura Castillo Represented By Salvatore Bommarito

    Trustee(s):

    Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-17749


    Joshua Cord Richardson


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01035 Sonnenfeld v. Richardson et al


    #4.00 CONT Status Conference re Notice of Removal RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18- ap-01035. Complaint by Cleo Sonnenfeld against Joshua C Richardson. Case No. RIC 1700456]; Attachments: # 1 Notice of Status Conference re Removal of Action Nature of Suit: 01 - Determination of removed claim or cause


    From: 3/28/18, 6/13/18, 7/25/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: JUDGMENT ENTERED 1/23/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

    Defendant(s):

    Joshua C Richardson Pro Se

    Todd A. Frealy Represented By Anthony A Friedman

    Plaintiff(s):

    Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By Laila Masud

    D Edward Hays

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

    2:00 PM

    6:18-17730


    Sally Jeanne Way


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01238 Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation


    #5.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01238. Complaint by Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation. (Charge To Estate). Verified Complaint for: 1) Quiet Title; 2) Cancellation of Instrument; and 3) Declaratory Relief Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Iskander, Brandon)


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Sally Jeanne Way Represented By Summer M Shaw

    Defendant(s):

    Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Brandon J Iskander

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12282


    Frank Javier Valderrama


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01141 Balderas et al v. Valderrama


    #6.00 Status Conference RE: [22] Amended Complaint Second by John F Bazan on behalf of Jose Carrillo against Jose Carrillo.


    EH   


    Docket 22

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED 1/31/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

    Defendant(s):

    Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

    Plaintiff(s):

    Elizabeth Balderas Represented By John F Bazan

    Jose Carrillo Represented By

    John F Bazan

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:18-15107


    Jesus Davila Romero


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01203 Frealy v. Davila et al


    #7.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01203. Complaint by Todd Frealy against Lorena Davila, Jesse L. Davila, Jesus Davila Romero. (Charge To Estate $350.00). (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Coversheet) Nature of Suit: 91- Declaratory judgment, 11- Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property, 31- Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co- owner - 363(h)


    From: 12/12/18 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jesus Davila Romero Represented By Neil R Hedtke

    Defendant(s):

    Lorena Davila Pro Se

    Jesse L. Davila Pro Se

    Jesus Davila Romero Represented By Neil R Hedtke

    Plaintiff(s):

    Todd Frealy Represented By

    Carmela Pagay

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Jesus Davila Romero


    Chapter 7

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay

    2:00 PM

    6:13-30625


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01089 Mata et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 et a


    #8.00 Motion to Seal Document (RE: related document(s)33 Motion for Summary Judgment). Notice of Motion and Motion to File Confidential Documents Under Seal


    EH   


    Docket 36

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/16/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark

    Defendant(s):

    National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

    Damian P Richard

    NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard

    National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

    Damian P Richard

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Livier Mata Represented By

    Michael E Clark

    Movant(s):

    National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

    Damian P Richard

    NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Damian P Richard


    Chapter 7

    National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

    Damian P Richard

    Plaintiff(s):

    John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

    Livier Mata Represented By

    Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:16-18182


    Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 11 by Claimant Natasha Reynoso and Mark Reynoso

    HOLDING DATE


    From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18


    EH   


    Docket 44


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Movant(s):

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:16-18182


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13

    Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


    #10.00 CONT Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (Third Amended Complaint)

    (Holding Date)


    From: 8/2/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18 Also #11

    EH   


    Docket 97

    Tentative Ruling: 2/6/2019

    BACKGROUND


    On September 12, 2016, Douglas and Anne Goodman ("Debtors" or "Defendants") filed their Chapter 13 voluntary petition.


    On November 11, 2016, Mark and Natasha Reynoso ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint seeking determination of the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (2)(A) (the "Complaint"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that in 2015, they purchased real property located at 1656 West Lisbon Street in Upland, CA (the "Property") from the Debtors, and that a sale was consummated on the alleged misrepresentations of the Debtors’ agent, Theresa Mann, that the Property was 3,231 square feet while Plaintiffs assert that the Property is actually 2,713 square feet (or a difference of 518 square feet). Plaintiffs also assert that they were led to believe that a water leak in the upstairs bathroom had been repaired. Plaintiffs allege that the Debtors knew or should have known that their agent was making false and misleading representations to Plaintiffs.


    On February 3, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Defendants first motion to dismiss the Complaint, with leave to amend. A First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") was filed on February 28, 2017. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint captioned "Corrected" which indicated it had been corrected for

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13

    typographical errors. (the "Corrected Complaint" or the "SAC"). The Court denied Defendants’ second motion to dismiss at a hearing on May 4, 2017. On June 5, 2017, the Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC ("Answer").


    On March 9, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the SAC, with leave to amend. A third amended complaint was then filed on May 23, 2018 (the "TAC"). [Note: there is a dispute regarding whether the operative complaint is a second or third amended complaint due to the filing of the "corrected complaint" indicated above. For purposes of this hearing, the operative complaint is Docket No. 93, the TAC].


    On June 25, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the TAC. This motion was orally granted after a hearing on August 2, 2018, after Plaintiffs failed to file opposition to the motion, and neither party appeared at the hearing. On August 29, 2018, the Court’s oral ruling was set aside based upon stipulation of the parties. On October 9, 2018, Defendants filed opposition to the instant motion to dismiss. This matter has been continued on multiple occasions to afford the parties the opportunity to settle the matter.


    DISCUSSION


    As a threshold matter, while noting that Defendants have filed an answer in this adversary proceeding, that answer was filed in response to a now dismissed complaint. There being no other responsive pleading related to the TAC, the Court construes the instant motion as a FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.


    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6), made applicable in adversary proceedings through FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7012, a bankruptcy court may dismiss a complaint if it fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In reviewing a FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the trial court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The trial court need not, however, accept as true conclusory allegations in a complaint or legal characterizations cast in the form of factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Hartman v. Gilead Scis., Inc. (In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.), 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13


    To avoid dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must aver in the complaint "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173

    L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). It is axiomatic that a claim cannot be plausible when it has no legal basis. A dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6) may be based either on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008).


    The crux of Defendants’ argument for dismissal of the TAC is that Plaintiffs have not set forth the basis for a money judgment under state law. In the Court’s tentative ruling on the motion to dismiss the FAC, the Court stated the following:


    The Ninth Circuit has held that a bankruptcy court may enter a monetary judgment on a disputed state law fraud claim in the course of determining that the debt is nondischargeable. Cowen v. Kennedy (In re Kennedy), 108 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir.1997). Shawn Deitz v. Wayne Ford, Patricia Ford (In re Wayne Ford, Patricia Ford), 469 B.R. 11, 21 (9th Cir. BAP 2012), aff'd, 760 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, although the Complaint is not explicit regarding the state law causes of action at issue, it appears implicit in the allegations that the Plaintiffs seek a monetary judgment as to a fraud or misrepresentation claim.

    Nonetheless, Plaintiffs should not have to guess at the state law basis of the debt for a money judgment.


    Here, the TAC has added bases for calculation of damages under state law but has still not set forth the state law basis for the monetary judgment. Thus, the Plaintiffs have still not addressed the concerns raised by the Court and Defendants that they do not have sufficient notice of the basis for a monetary judgment such that the Defendants can adequately defend themselves in the action.


    Given the contents of the opposition to the motion to dismiss, and noting the discussion at previous hearings to dismiss, it appears there is significant confusion regarding the required contents of a complaint in this situation.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13

    Importantly, the instant situation is unique. There is a parallel, outstanding claim objection which could serve as a forum to litigate the validity of the underlying debt. Instead of maintaining two parallel, and overlapping, courses of litigation, the claim objection proceeding has been converted to a "holding date" so that both issues, the validity of the underlying debt and, if established, the non-dischargeability of that debt, can be more efficiently litigated in a single proceeding. Because this adversary proceeding is functioning as more than just a proceeding to determine the non-dischargeability of a pre- determined debt, Plaintiffs need to articulate the state law basis for the debt with the precision and clarity that would be required in, for instance, a state court proceeding. This is even more critical because, at a previous hearing, state law affirmative defenses of limited applicability were raised, and the Court is unable to assess the validity of such defenses when it is unclear what Plaintiff has raised as a theory of debt.


    For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs are reminded that this instant adversary proceeding serves two functions: (1) to litigate the validity of the debt; and (2) to litigate the non-dischargeability of that debt, if established. The former is really the preliminary issue in this situation, and the court expects the former to be pled with sufficient detail to enable the Court and Defendants to clearly ascertain Plaintiff’s theory of the debt.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISMISSING the second amended complaint [Dkt. No. 93] with leave to amend.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Debtor(s):


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Defendant(s):

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

    Jose Pastora Represented By

    Andrew L Leff

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Movant(s):

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

    Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

    Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

    Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Plaintiff(s):

    Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:16-18182


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13

    Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


    #11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [13] Amended Complaint by Michael J Hemming on behalf of Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01277. Complaint by Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Douglas Edward Goodman, Anne Louise Goodman. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) filed by Plaintiff Mark & Natasha Reynoso)

    (Holding Date)


    From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18


    Also #10 EH   

    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Defendant(s):

    Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Edward Goodman


    Chapter 13

    Jose Pastora Represented By

    Andrew L Leff

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Plaintiff(s):

    Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12440


    Paul Pound


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01147 Lloyd v. Pound


    #12.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment From: 11/14/18, 12/5/18, 1/16/19

    Also #13 EH   

    Docket 6

    Tentative Ruling:

    2/6/2019

    1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


      On March 26, 2018, Paul Pound ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On July 2, 2018, April Lloyd ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Debtor to determine dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(a), (a)(4), and (a)(6)). On July 9, 2018, Debtor obtained a discharge and, four days later, the case was closed.


      On July 31, 2018, Debtor filed his answer. On October 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. After a stipulated continuance of the hearing, Debtor filed his opposition on October 31, 2018.


    2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND


      On November 13, 2016, Marcus Lloyd, Plaintiff’s brother entered into a purchase agreement with Debtor on behalf of Juanita Lloyd ("Juanita"), Plaintiff’s mother, which was intended to be structured, according to Plaintiff, to "retrieve the equity in Juanita’s home and lower her mortgage payments." Instead, according to Plaintiff, the agreement "was constructed to deprive Juanita of her home without receiving value

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Paul Pound


      Chapter 7

      from the Debtor." Plaintiff’s account of the details of the purchase agreement, recited on page 12 of the motion for summary judgment, are as follows:


      The Purchase Agreement stated that the purchase price was $670,000. The purchase price comprised of 75% in financing, 20% in seller carry back, and a 5% cash down payment. After closing, the seller was to release the seller carry back, and receive equity in return, and the seller was to reimburse the buyer the 5% cash down payment, and receive equity in return. Once the seller carry back was released, and the down payment reimbursed, all equity was to belong to the seller. Furthermore, the Purchase Agreement required that rental payments, equal to the amount of the mortgage payment, be made each month. In addition, at the time of closing, the Debtor was entitled to 3% of the purchase price as a real estate fee. Per the Purchase Agreement, Juanita deposited monthly payments into to [sic] the Debtor’s Bank of American account starting around December 2006. She continued to make these payments until May 2007, when the Debtor requested that Juanita submit payments to a new account with Washington Mutual.


      [Dkt. No. 6, pg 12].


      Ultimately, on November 16, 2009, Juanita filed a complaint against Debtor in state court, asserting causes of action for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. On August 30, 2011, Debtor and Juanita entered into a stipulated judgment which provided that Debtor would make periodic payments to Juanita totaling $60,000. In the event that Debtor failed to comply with the payment schedule, the state court would enter judgment for the remaining balance.1


      In January 2014, Debtor stopped adhering to the periodic payment schedule. On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff moved for entry of judgment in state court and, on December 20, 2016, the state court entered judgment in the amount of $42,000.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Paul Pound

    3. DISCUSSION


      Chapter 7


      Plaintiff moves to have this debt deemed nondischargeable pursuant to three different provisions: (1) 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A); (2) 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4); and (3) 11 U.S.C.

      § 523(a)(6).


      11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6) state:


      1. A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –


    1. for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of creditor, to the extent obtained by –


      1. false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;


(4) for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny;


(6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity


The elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim are well-established: (a) the debtor made representations; (b) which were known to be false; (c) the representations were made with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (d) the creditor relied on such representations; (e) the creditor sustained loss and damage as a proximate result of the representations. See, e.g., In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010).


11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) contains three different exceptions to dischargeability: (1) fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity; (2) larceny; and (3) embezzlement. Regarding fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, the elements are:

2:00 PM

CONT...


Paul Pound


Chapter 7

(1) the existence of an express trust; (2) the debt was caused by fraud or defalcation; and (3) the debtor acted as a fiduciary to the creditor at the time the debt was created. See, e.g., In re Niles, 106 F.3d 1456, 1459 (9th Cir. 1997). "Larceny is the fraudulent and wrongful taking and carrying away of the property of another with intent to convert the property to the taker’s use without the consent of the owner." 4 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 523.10[2] (16th ed. 2009). Finally, embezzlement, contains three elements: "(1) property rightfully in the possession of a nonowner; (2) nonowner’s appropriation of the property to a use other than which it was entrusted; and (3) circumstances indicating fraud." In re Littleton, 942 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1991).


To prevail on a claim under § 523(a)(6), a creditor must demonstrate three elements:

  1. willful conduct; (2) malice; and (3) causation. See In re Butcher, 200 B.R. 675, 680 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1996) (quoting In re Apte, 180 B.R. 223, 230 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)). A willful injury is a "deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury." Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998). "A malicious injury involves (1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse." In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2001)).


    Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) (incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by by FED. R. BANKR. P. 7056). This required the moving party to "affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party." Soremkun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007).


    The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts that show a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). All reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. See id.


    If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must set forth, by

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Paul Pound


    Chapter 7

    affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. The non-moving party, however, "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material fact…." Matsushita Electrical Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986).


    A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.


    1. Issue Preclusion on Plaintiff’s Claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)



      Issue preclusion applies in nondischargeability proceedings to bar the relitigation of factual issues that were determined in a prior state court action. See, e.g., Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284-85, n.11 (1991). To determine the issue-preclusive effect of a California state court's judgment, California preclusion law must be applied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380

      (1985); Gayden v. Nourbakhsh (In re Nourbakhsh), 67 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 1995). Under California law, the party asserting issue preclusion has the burden of establishing the following "threshold" requirements:

      1. the issue sought to be precluded must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding;

      2. the issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding;

      3. it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding;

      4. the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits; and,

      5. the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding.

        Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.2001). Additionally, the application of issue preclusion requires a "mandatory ‘additional’

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Paul Pound


        Chapter 7

        inquiry into whether imposition of issue preclusion would be fair and consistent with sound public policy." In re Khaligh, 338 B.R. 817, 824–25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2006). As stated by the California Supreme Court


        We have repeatedly looked to the public policies underlying the doctrine before concluding that collateral estoppel should be applied in a particular setting. Accordingly, the public policies underlying

        collateral estoppel—preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, promotion of judicial economy, and protection of litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation—strongly influence whether its application in a particular circumstance would be fair to the parties and constitutes sound judicial policy.

        Lucido v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 3d 335, 342–43 (Cal. 1990) (internal citations omitted).


        As noted by Plaintiff, it is true that, in some situations, a stipulated judgment can form the basis for collateral estoppel. "The parties need only ‘manifest an intent to be collaterally bound by’ the terms of the stipulated judgment." In re Boyce, 2016 WL 6247612 at *3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Cal. State Auto. Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Super. Ct., 50 Cal. 3d 658, 664 (Cal. 1990)).


        Here, Debtor has filed a declaration which states that "[t]he judgment was never intended to be dispositive of the facts of the case." [Dkt. No. 17, ¶ 11]. This is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and defeat Plaintiff’s argument as to issue preclusion at the summary judgment stage. See In re Jun Ho Yang, 698 Fed. Appx. 374 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Here, Jun Ho Yang submitted a declaration that he did not intend the stipulated facts in the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in the prior state court action to have a preclusive effect in future proceedings. Such a declaration (even if self-serving) creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the parties’ intent.")

    2. Absence of a Genuine Issue of Material Fact



Plaintiff’s alternative argument is that summary judgment is warranted because uncontroverted facts establish that the debt is non-dischargeable. The Court disagrees with this argument.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Paul Pound


Chapter 7

Regarding § 523(a)(2)(A), Debtor denies, inter alia, that he had the intent to deceive Plaintiff, and supports such denial with factual assertions establishing that possibility. "The intent to deceive is a factual question and largely depends upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony." In re Sutton, 2015 WL 7776658 at *6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015). In this case, "where different ultimate inferences may be drawn from the parties’ differing characterization of the facts, summary judgment is inappropriate." In re Allen, 2018 WL 909876 at *3 (Bankr. C.D. Cal 2018) (citing Sankovich v. Ins. Co of N. Am., 638 F.2d 136, 140 (9th Cir. 1981); see also In re Lucas, 386 B.R. 332 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2008) ("Rarely is it appropriate to grant summary judgment on a claim for nondischargeability based on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because intent to defraud often depends on the credibility of witnesses."). Here, Debtor asserts that it was Plaintiff that first breached the purchase agreement, and that, upon such breach, Debtor continued to act in accordance with the purchase agreement for several months after the breach. The Court concludes that Debtor has established, at the least, a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether Debtor had an intent to deceive Plaintiff.


Regarding § 523(a)(4), Plaintiff argues that the payments her mother made pursuant to the purchase agreement were ultimately embezzled by Debtor. In support of such argument, Plaintiff relies upon extrinsic evidence about the parties’ intent when entering into the purchase agreement. Debtor has presented a different account of the parties’ intent regarding the purchase agreement which, if true, would not allow for Debtor’s actions to be characterized as embezzlement. Therefore, the Court concludes that Debtor has entitled a genuine issue of material fact with regard to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to § 523(a)(4).


Regarding § 523(a)(6), the Court concludes that Debtor has established a genuine issue of material fact for the same reason as noted in the two preceding paragraphs – namely that Debtor has asserted that it was Plaintiff’s mother who first breached the purchase agreement, and that Debtor made a good-faith effort to comply with the terms of the purchase agreement for several months after the original breach.


TENTATIVE RULING

2:00 PM

CONT...


Paul Pound


Chapter 7


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Paul Pound Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Paul M Pound Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

April Lloyd Represented By

Chane Buck

Plaintiff(s):

April Lloyd Represented By

Chane Buck

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-12440


Paul Pound


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01147 Lloyd v. Pound


#13.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Complaint by April Lloyd against Paul M Pound. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud, 67 - Dischargeability - 523(a) (4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury


From: 9/5/18, 11/14/18, 12/5/18, 1/16/19 Also #12

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Paul Pound Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Paul M Pound Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

April Lloyd Represented By

Chane Buck

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20222


Moises Cortez and Rosalia Cortez


Chapter 7


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1661 W Via Bello Drive Rialto, California 92377


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


From: 1/15/19 EH   

Docket 13

Tentative Ruling:


02/07/2019

The hearing on the Motion was continued to this date because the real property declaration previously filed was illegible. Movant has now corrected the issue. Based on the evidence provided, the Court is inclined to: GRANT relief from the stay under

§§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT Movant's request for authority to offer loan workout options. DENIED as to § 362(d)(4) for lack of cause shown.

APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.


01/15/2019


The copy of the Movant’s motion for relief from stay as filed on the Court’s docket and also as reflected in the courtesy copy provided to the Court is illegible as to the Real Property Declaration. For this reason, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing to February 7, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. The Debtor must file and serve an amended notice of hearing and amended Motion with a clear and legible copy of the Real

11:00 AM

CONT...


Moises Cortez and Rosalia Cortez


Chapter 7

Property Declaration attached, on or before January 17, 2019. APPEARANCES WAIVED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Moises Cortez Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosalia Cortez Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Movant(s):

Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Alexander G Meissner

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20272


John Ryan


Chapter 13


#2.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/21/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Ryan Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20308


Joseph Liebgott, IV and Robby Jean Harrison


Chapter 13


#3.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph Liebgott IV Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Robby Jean Harrison Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20215


Frank Prouty


Chapter 13


#4.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/28/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Prouty Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20213


Gary Bryant


Chapter 13


#5.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/28/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary Bryant Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20208


Rubin Esquivel


Chapter 13


#6.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/28/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rubin Esquivel Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20200


Denise Cherie Darden


Chapter 13


#7.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Denise Cherie Darden Represented By Julie Philippi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20002


Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19956


Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff


Chapter 13


#9.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Herman A. Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Monica Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19549


Mary Joyce Rudolph


Chapter 13


#10.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/10/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mary Joyce Rudolph Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18809


Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Motion Re: Objection to Claim Number 3 by Claimant IRS From: 1/10/19

Also #12 EH   

Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Movant(s):

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18809


Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18, 1/10/19

Also #11 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17189


Earma Denise Young Washington and Marvin Ray


Chapter 13


#13.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


Also #14 EH   

Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Joint Debtor(s):

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Movant(s):

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17189


Earma Denise Young Washington and Marvin Ray


Chapter 13


#14.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19

Also #13 EH   

Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Joint Debtor(s):

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-17859


Juan Aguilera


Chapter 13


#15.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

Docket 88


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juan Aguilera Represented By A Mina Tran

Movant(s):

Juan Aguilera Represented By A Mina Tran

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-24888


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13


#16.00 CONT Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Bankruptcy Case From: 1/10/19, 1/31/19

EH       


Docket 72

Tentative Ruling:

1/10/19

BACKGROUND


On December 12, 2014, Jesus Simental ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On February 26, 2015, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On May 31, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to submit tax returns or refunds. Debtor did not file an opposition to the motion. After a continuance, no appearance was made on behalf of Debtor at the continued hearing on the motion to dismiss, and the case was dismissed on November 8, 2018.


On November 26, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to vacate the dismissal order on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence and/or excusable neglect. On November 27, 2018, Trustee filed comments indicating disapproval, although the comments could also be characterized as recommending conditional approval. On December 3, 2018, Debtor set the matter for hearing and, on December 4, 2018, Debtor filed a supplemental declaration.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13

DISCUSSION



Debtor relies on FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, which allows for relief from an order based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."


The legal basis for Debtor’s assertion that the dismissal order should be vacated is that Debtor’s counsel inadvertently did not appear at the hearing due to an office error. It is well established, however, that "an attorney’s ignorance and carelessness does not provide grounds for Rule 60(b) relief." In re Mercado, 144 B.R. 879, 886 (Bankr.

C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972). And the mere assertion that counsel did not fulfill its duties, but that such carelessness was inadvertent, is clearly inadequate to support Rule 60(b) relief. See, e.g., In re ACME Motors, Inc., 125 B.R. 702, 703 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1991).


"Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary." Id. Yet, in this Court, a request for relief from a Chapter 13 dismissal order has become ordinary. On occasion, the requests are legally sound. Here, however, the evidence provided simply indicates that Debtor’s counsel did not attend the hearing due to an internal error.


The Supreme Court has stated that:


There is certainly no merit to the contention that dismissal of petitioner’s claim because of his counsel’s unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent. Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13

Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962). See also Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009) ("[T] he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds. The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does not present exceptional circumstances."). "Although attorney carelessness can [in certain circumstances] constitute ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney’s somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion conditioned on compliance with the Trustee’s conditions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

Movant(s):

Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-21418


James Lloyd Walker


Chapter 7


#17.00 Order To Show Cause Why The Debtor Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of The Court's Turnover Order


EH   


Docket 138


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

James Lloyd Walker Represented By

Andrew Edward Smyth

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

11:00 AM

6:16-16720


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


#18.00 Motion for Reconsideration; (2) Clarification on Dismissal as to what party; (3) Order to Show Cause as to why the Adversary Proceeding should not be Dismissed


Also #19 EH   

Docket 147


Tentative Ruling: 02/07/2019 BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2016, the Luevina Henry ("Debtor") filed her petition for chapter 13 relief (the "Main Case"). Rod Danielson was the duly appointed chapter 13 trustee ("Trustee"). On June 18, 2018, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the Debtor’s case (the "MTD"). The Trustee asserted failure to submit 2017 federal and state tax returns as grounds for dismissal. A hearing on the MTD was held on July 23, 2018, following which the case was dismissed. An order dismissing the case was entered on July 25, 2018 (the "Dismissal Order"). On August 6, 2018, Debtor filed a Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Order, which was ultimately denied on September 14, 2018. On September 17, 2018, the Debtor filed a second Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Order (the "Second MTV"). After multiple hearings, the Second MTV was denied at the hearing held on December 20, 2018. An order denying the Second MTV was entered on January 3, 2018.


Separate from events in the Main Case, the Debtor filed a complaint on August 25, 2017, alleging a claim for damages for violation of the automatic stay, violations of various civil rights statutes, and generally seeking to have Claim No. 3 of Real Time Resolutions, Inc. disallowed (the "Complaint"). The Complaint initiated an adversary proceeding related to the Main Case.


On January 14, 2019, the Debtor filed her Motion and Notice for Reconsideration; (2) Clarification on Dismissal as to what party; (3) Order to Show

11:00 AM

CONT...


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Cause as to why the Adversary Proceeding should not be Dismissed. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the Adversary Proceeding. Rule 60(b)(3) for Fraud on the Court by Rod Danielson and other parties (the "Motion"). The Motion appears to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the MTV. However, the Motion was improperly filed in the Debtor’s adversary proceeding as opposed to being filed in the Main Case. On January 25, 2019, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank filed its opposition to the Motion.


DISCUSSION


As a threshold matter, the Motion was filed in the wrong case because the primary relief sought by the Debtor appears to be a request for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the MTV which was entered as to the Main Case and not as to the instant adversary proceeding. On that basis, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice as procedurally improper. However, the Court will nonetheless attempt to address some of the Debtor’s concerns. First, The Debtor’s Motion indicates that she lacks clarity about that the Main Case and adversary proceeding are distinct, but related, proceedings.


The Main Case

The Main Case is the chapter 13 proceeding wherein debtors propose plans of repayment to their creditors. In the Debtor’s chapter 13 proceeding, Rod Danielson is the chapter 13 trustee. As such he has various statutory duties. Specifically,


the chapter 13 trustee serves the interests of all creditors primarily by collecting payments from debtors and disbursing them to creditors.


…. But a chapter 13 trustee "is no mere disbursing agent." … § 1302 grants the chapter 13 trustee various powers to ensure that such collections and disbursements occur equitably, according to the dictates of Congress. Under subsection (b)(1) of § 1302, the chapter 13 trustee has the power contained in § 704(5) to "examine proofs of claims and object to the allowance of any claim that is improper." And under subsection (b)(2) of § 1302 that trustee is granted standing to "appear and be heard" in a hearing to confirm a Chapter 13 plan.

Matter of Maddox, 15 F.3d 1347, 1355 (5th Cir. 1994) (cited with approval in In re

11:00 AM

CONT...


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Andrews, 49 F.3d 1404, 1408 (9th Cir. 1995)).

The Debtor’s Motion indicates that she is not clear when the Main Case was dismissed. As set forth above, the Main Case was dismissed on July 25, 2018. The Dismissal Order is Docket No. 159 and the Debtor can obtain a copy of the Dismissal of the Order from the Clerk’s Office. When the Main Case was terminated, the Debtor’s chapter 13 proceeding for reorganization and payment of the Debtor’s prepetition debts was terminated.


Next, the Debtor has provided an unauthenticated copy of a January 3, 2019, letter from the Trustee wherein he states that that he does not represent the debtor or creditors and cannot provide legal advice. The Debtor interprets this letter to mean that Mr. Danielson is not the "Trustee of the debtor or the creditor" and on that basis, the Debtor asserts that Mr. Danielson had no standing to take any actions in her case and generally that he has misrepresented himself and perpetuated some alleged fraud on the Court.


The Debtor, however, does understand Mr. Danielson’s letter and his role in the bankruptcy proceedings. The Trustee is simply stating to the Debtor that he cannot provide legal representation for the Debtor or for the Debtor’s creditors. That is correct. Mr. Danielson is the trustee for the estate’s of debtors in chapter 13 bankruptcies within the jurisdiction of the Riverside Division of the Central District of California. His duties as trustee are outlined in the Bankruptcy Code and as indicated above, serve the interest of the creditors (without specifically representing any individual creditor’s interests) by collecting payments from debtors and disbursing them to creditors, while also ensuring that monies are disbursed in accordance with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. Matter of Maddox, at 1355.The trustee does not represent individual creditors and does not represent the debtor but has a significant role in the debtor’s bankruptcy as required under the Bankruptcy Code.

And the Debtor has provided no evidence of any wrongdoing as to the Trustee.

Further, the Debtor disputes that payments were owed to creditors in the Main Case and asks who the Debtor owed money to. The Debtor is free to seek copies from the Clerk’s office of the claims register for her case. Seven claims were filed amounting to a total of $594,423. The Debtor only objected to one of the claims and never obtained an order disallowing any claims. The Trustee calculated the monthly plan payment based on claims filed in the case and as indicated on the record at the hearing on the MTV, the Debtor would have had to bring her plan current by paying a sum of $5,600 in order to reinstate the Main Case. The Debtor indicated at the hearing that she did not have the funds to cure this deficiency and that was a primary reason why her MTV was denied.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Finally, the Debtor asserts that she is entitled to a discharge in her Main Case but asserts no facts or authority to support such request.


The Adversary Case

As to the Adversary Case, the Debtor makes various references to a Ninth Circuit ruling in her favor, which is irrelevant to the Main Case. However, a review of the Court’s docket reveals only one appeal determined by the Ninth Circuit BAP. Specifically, on October 30, 2017, Judge Jury entered an order granting a motion to dismiss the adversary complaint as to Sandy Garza. The Debtor appealed the ruling.

The BAP sent the Debtor a letter indicating that the order on appeal did not appear final and requiring a response. The Debtor’s response was interpreted by the Panel as confirming that the order on appeal was interlocutory and requesting dismissal without prejudice. On February 21, 2018, the BAP dismissed the appeal and, in its ruling, stated that the Debtor would have an opportunity to challenge any final judgment of the bankruptcy court. The Debtor has attached no evidence of any other ruling or statement by the BAP or Ninth Circuit impacting the adversary proceeding.


TENTATIVE RULING


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to DENY the Motion as improperly filed in the adversary case, without prejudice to any rights the Debtor may have to seek relief in the Main Case.


As an aside, the Court finds patent merit in Chase’s argument as to the procedural impropriety of the Motion. However, the Court shall defer deeper consideration of this argument until such time as the Debtor properly brings the Motion in the Main Case.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Defendant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker

Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

Tavares Pro Se

Movant(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-16720


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


#19.00 CONT Status Conference on Complaint fld 8-25-17 - Dischargeability, willful and malicious injury, validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property, injunctive relief


From: 11/16/17, 11/1/18, 12/20/18, 12/20/18


Also #18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker

Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

Tavares Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16932


Olivia Lopez


Chapter 13


#20.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 55


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Olivia Lopez Represented By

William Radcliffe

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16178


Eriberto A. Sandoval


Chapter 13


#21.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/17/19, 1/24/19

EH       


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eriberto A. Sandoval Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14761


Reginald D. Caldwell


Chapter 13


#22.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Reginald D. Caldwell Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10957


Damaris Denise Redgray-Johnson


Chapter 13


#23.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 42

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Damaris Denise Redgray-Johnson Represented By

Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10170


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#24.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19

EH   


Docket 70

*** VACATED *** REASON: ADVANCED TO 1/24/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17469


Annette Culpepper


Chapter 13


#25.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annette Culpepper Represented By Nathan Fransen

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15662


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


#26.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13599


Maurice Frank Manceau


Chapter 13


#27.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19, 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 92

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

2/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13239


Gerald Bauer


Chapter 13


#28.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gerald Bauer Represented By

Daniel King

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-12118


Veronica A Mendoza


Chapter 13


#29.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency From: 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 58

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

2/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Veronica A Mendoza Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-10385


Adolfo Gonzalez and Angelica Gonzalez


Chapter 13


#30.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 77


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Adolfo Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Joint Debtor(s):

Angelica Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-13811


Christopher Lee Sumners


Chapter 13


#31.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 97


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher Lee Sumners Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-10323


Carlos Barron


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 27447 Eagles Nest Drive, Corona CA 92883


MOVANT: CARLOS BARRON


EH   


Docket 16


Tentative Ruling:

02/13/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: None


The prior case was dismissed on voluntary request for dismissal by the Debtor. The Motion indicates that the dismissal resulted from the fact that Debtor’s intended sale of certain real property located at 27447 Eagles Nest Drive in Corona, CA ("Property") fell out of escrow. Attached to the Motion is evidence of a new residential purchase agreement signed on January 25, 2019. Debtor asserts that he intends to sell the Property with court approval, pay off secured creditors, and use the proceeds to fund a feasible chapter 13 plan. The evidence is sufficient to warrant continuance of the automatic stay.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Carlos Barron Represented By Michael D Franco

Movant(s):

Carlos Barron Represented By Michael D Franco

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Carlos Barron


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-10452


Charles Lee Dismukes


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 2014 Toyota Tundra


MOVANT: CHARLES LEE DISMUKES


EH   


Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

02/13/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Debtor’s first 2018 case had a plan confirmed on April 20, 2018. By May 1, 2018, the Trustee had already filed a Motion to Dismiss for delinquency. The case was dismissed on June 19, 2018 for failure to make plan payments. The Debtor’s second 2018 case was dismissed on request of the Debtor at confirmation. The Debtor requested 10 days to convert his case to a case under chapter 7 but never effectuated the conversion.


The Motion indicates and the Court’s records confirm that the Debtor’s prior two cases sought reorganization, in part, to pay arrears owed on a loan secured by real property. The Motion indicates that since the filing of the prior two filings, the Debtor has allowed the secured lender to foreclose on his residence. In lieu of the approximately $1,700 in mortgage expense, the Debtor will now be paying approximately $500 in monthly rent. The significant change in the Debtor’s financial condition has increased his disposable income sufficiently to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the instant case was filed in good faith.

The Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

2:00 PM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Charles Lee Dismukes


Chapter 13

Charles Lee Dismukes Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

Charles Lee Dismukes Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#3.00 CONT Motion of the Debtor and Debtor-in- Possession for Order Approving Management Agreement


From: 1/15/19, 1/29/19 EH   

Docket 290


Tentative Ruling:


02/13/2019


The Court has evaluated the PCO’s Amended Second Statement and the Debtor’s

response. The PCO opposes employment of HMS due to what he asserts is evidence of a material compromise in patient care. The PCO’s position is supported by his own declaration and review, as well as by the declaration and report of David R. Hoffman.

Of note, the Court agrees with the PCO that there are documented deficiencies in the Debtor’s and, by extension, HMS’s oversight of the Debtor’s staff. The various reports certainly point to evidence of lapses in documentation and failure to update patient plans of care (POCs) to provide up-to-date information regarding patients’ prescribed medications and the frequency with which such medications must be administered. The Court does not dispute that such issues are problematic and must be addressed. However, on the other hand, the Court agrees with the Debtor that it has already been evaluated by state regulatory authorities, and while the CDPH report corroborates the lapses in documentation and care, the same report of the CDPH determined the Debtor to be in compliance with CoPs (Conditions of Participation), notwithstanding its findings.

Moreover, the PCO provided the Court a copy of its correspondence with CHAP (the organization which typically provides the Debtor with its accreditations). Here, notwithstanding the nonpayment of CHAP fees, the PCO’s correspondence with CHAP similarly resulted in a response by CHAP that given the CDPH’s finding that the Debtor was in compliance with CoPs, it “would not typically pursue review of the organization.” This is presumably despite the PCO having provided CHAP with

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

documentation evidencing an alleged material compromise in patient care.

In sum, both the State and the third party accreditation agency apparently reviewed the concerns raised by the PCO and found them insufficiently egregious to warrant official corrective action. Separately, the Debtor has provided convincing evidence that the Debtor’s position in 2016 was far worse than it is today and the improvement in the Debtor’s financial situation and future prospects appears to be, at least in part, attributable to HMS.

Weighing the PCO’s concern against the Debtor’s evidence that it has exercised good business judgment, the Court ultimately finds that there is insufficient evidence that the lapses in care are so egregious as to compel the Court to deny the Debtor’s motion to approve the agreement with HMS. However, as discussed at the prior hearing, the Court intends to condition approval of the agreement with a provision in the order for Court review of HMS’s fees under a reasonableness standard. As a part of this review, the Court will take into consideration HMS’s efforts to address the deficiencies noted in the CDPH report.

Finally, the Court sees no reason to deny the Debtor’s request for an order approving the Agreement nunc pro tunc to the petition date. In particular, as this Court has acknowledged, the problems occasioned by the Debtor’s need to change counsel early in the case warrant exception for some of the delay in bringing the Motion.

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


01/29/2019


BACKGROUND


On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor is a not-for-profit home health services organization with approximately 160 employees and 360 patients. At the time of filing, Debtor had three patients centers: Riverside, Palm Desert, and Murrieta.


On December 20, 2018, the Debtor filed a Motion for Order Approving Management Agreement with Healthsure Management Services, LLC (HMS) ("Motion"), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b). The Motion seeks an order approving the

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

management agreement with HMS, to provide "management, financial, technology and healthcare services" to the Debtor (the "Agreement"). The Agreement provides for HMS to manage the daily operations of the Debtor with compensation to be paid on a monthly basis, except for a portion that shall be deferred so that the Debtor remains solvent postpetition. (Motion at 2:11-16). HMS has provided management services to the Debtor since October 2016. (Furman Decl. ¶2). Debtor believes approval of the Motion is necessary and appropriate to provide continuity of management of the Debtor. (Id. at ¶3). The Debtor seeks approval of the Agreement pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 363(b).

On January 2, 2019, Jerry Seelig, the Patient Care Ombudsman ("PCO"), filed a statement related to the Motion. On January 2, 2019, the Debtor, Committee, the

H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Foundation"), and the PCO filed their stipulation to continue the hearing (the "Stipulation"). The Court approved the Stipulation. On January 14, 2019, the Foundation timely filed its opposition to the Motion ("Opposition"). On January 22, 2019, the Debtor timely replied ("Reply").


As a threshold matter, the PCO asserts that HMS has (1) failed to implement corrective actions required under a 2017 Accreditation Report, and (2) is failing to provide adequate care delivery for hospice patients. The PCO recommends that the Court defer a ruling on the Motion until the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) concludes its review of the Debtor’s operation and issues a Statement of Deficiencies. The Court notes that the PCO cannot provide certainty that such a statement will be issued. The PCO separately requests that the Court require the Debtor to provide information regarding staffing levels and ratios, and requests that the Board of Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties should complete a thorough review of any such report.


The Foundation argues that HMS must be employed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327, but if employed under § 327 the Motion does not meet requirements for employment under applicable law, and the Debtor has not established "exceptional circumstances" to justify nunc pro tunc relief as requested.


DISCUSSION

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

Employment pursuant to § 363 versus §327

First, as to the Foundation’s arguments that HMS should be employed pursuant to § 327 in lieu of § 363, the Court has evaluated and agrees with the Debtor that the weight of authority supports the availability of § 363 as a vehicle for retention of management professionals and/or consultants. In re Nine W. Holdings, Inc., 588

B.R. 678, 686 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018). Further, as indicated by the Debtor, such retentions have long been authorized by the courts of the Central District of California. (Mot. at 4:4-13). In this case, where the evidence indicates that has provided management services to the Debtor since 2016, the Court agrees with the analysis of the Nine West Court, inter alia, that "rehabilitating a debtor and preserving the value of the debtor's business—significant Code-related objectives—can be best accomplished here by permitting the Debtors to utilize their estate assets under section 363 of the Code to hire the advisory services firm and its personnel who played key management roles at the company prepetition, thus ensuring the continuity of such services." Nine West at 691.


Nunc Pro Tunc Employment

Nunc pro tunc employment is limited to "exceptional circumstances where an applicant can show both [1] a satisfactory explanation for the failure to receive prior judicial approval and [2] that he or she has benefited the bankruptcy estate in some significant manner" (collectively, these two factors is referred to as the "THC Factors"). Okamoto v. THC Fin’l Corp. (In re THC), 837 F.2d 389, 392 (9th Cir.

1988). As to nunc pro tunc employment, the Foundation’s evidentiary objections are well-taken. Specifically, the Debtor has provided a de minimis declaration attesting to the business justification for the retention of HMS. Moreover, the Court is concerned that there is a lack of clarity distinguishing the contours of the Agreement with HMS from the services being provided by Force 10. The Court is inclined to permit the Debtor an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence outlining the management structure of the Debtor assuming both entities are employed. This is particularly important given the potential costs of permitting the Debtor to enter into agreements with two separate management-type entities.


TENTATIVE RULING


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing for

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.



Party Information

Debtor(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

Movant(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall

2:00 PM

6:18-11717


Jordan Halston Amini


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01132 Marquez v. Amini


#4.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01132. Complaint by Gustavo Marquez against Jordan Halston Amini . false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) ,(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 8/22/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jordan Halston Amini Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Jordan Halston Amini Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Gustavo Marquez Represented By Curtis M King

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

3:00 PM

6:16-19993


B & B Family, Incorporated


Chapter 11


#5.00 Joint Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy Which Includes Reorganized Debtor Selling Its Business


EH   


Docket 211


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

Movant(s):

Patricia Forte Represented By

D Edward Hays


Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Hearing Room

303


2:00 PM

6:18-10939


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01106 Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Johnson


#1.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01106. Complaint by Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC against Vance Zachary Johnson. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 7/10/18 EH       

Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/24/19 AT 2:00 PM

Party Information

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

Defendant(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

Plaintiff(s):

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10475


Natasja Bianca Barberi


Chapter 7


#1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 HONDA CIVIC, VIN: 2HGF C2F5 7GH5 36032


MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Natasja Bianca Barberi Represented By Edward G Topolski

Movant(s):

HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Natasja Bianca Barberi


Chapter 7

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10431


Ariella Joi Jackson


Chapter 7


#2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 HONDA CIVIC, VIN: 2HGF C2F7 4JH5 02493


MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ariella Joi Jackson Pro Se

Movant(s):

HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10426


Ebonee Small


Chapter 7


#3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 1333 Reche Canyon Road #1006 Colton, CA 92324


MOVANT: CANYON HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC


EH   


Docket 10

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/5/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ebonee Small Pro Se

Movant(s):

Todd Brisco Represented By

Todd A Brisco

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10241


Gary R. Horton, Jr.


Chapter 7


#4.00 Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY (Flattened) (Re: related document(s) 11 Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Personal Property Re: 2017 Jeep Renegade, VIN: ZACCJABB9HPE62836)


MOVANT: FIRST TECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY request under ¶ 9 for lack of cause shown. Specifically, the Court notes that dismissal of a single previous case for failure to timely submit pay advices is inadequate to support the relief under ¶ 9.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary R. Horton Jr. Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Movant(s):

First Tech Federal Credit Union Represented By Nichole Glowin

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Gary R. Horton, Jr.


Chapter 7

John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10237


Alicia Elaine Lentz


Chapter 7


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 BMW 5 SERIES, VIN WBAFR7C58DC824880


MOVANT: PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Okay Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alicia Elaine Lentz Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Movant(s):

Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Alicia Elaine Lentz


Chapter 7

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10184


George Vermeer and Sharon J Vermeer


Chapter 7


#6.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 19 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 7050 James River Dr., Mira Loma, CA 91752


MOVANT: KADHAR M. SAHIB


EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY relief from co-debtor stay because this is a Chapter 7 proceeding. DENY requests under ¶¶ 7, 9, and 11 for lack of cause shown.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

George Vermeer Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Joint Debtor(s):

Sharon J Vermeer Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Movant(s):

Kadhar M. Sahib Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


George Vermeer and Sharon J Vermeer

Theresa A Jones


Chapter 7

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10067


Carolise Lynn Armstead


Chapter 7


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Kia Rio, VIN: KNADN5A35H6802929


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


EH   


Docket 16


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

  1. and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Carolise Lynn Armstead Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20756


    Karl W Detlefsen


    Chapter 7


    #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Jennifer M vs Karl Detlefsen, docket number BC701876 Superior Court of California, LA - Stanley Mosk Courthouse


    MOVANT: JENNIFER MASLAR


    EH   


    Docket 7


    Tentative Ruling:

    2/26/19


    On December 27, 2018, Karl Detlefsen ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Jennifer Maslar ("Creditor") as the holder of an unsecured claim in the amount of $2,250,000.


    On January 29, 2019, Creditor filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.


    When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:


    1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

    2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

    3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third

10:00 AM

CONT...


Karl W Detlefsen

parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11)


Chapter 7

whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."


In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:


The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


Here, the Court agrees with Creditor that the above-enumerated factors appear to weigh in favor of granting Creditor relief from the automatic stay. Specifically, the instant bankruptcy case is a no-asset, Chapter 7 case, the state court proceeding includes state law claims and would not have any effect on the administration of the estate (which appears to have been essentially completed), and the state court litigation has pending for nearly a year.

10:00 AM

CONT...


Karl W Detlefsen


Chapter 7


Furthermore, Creditor has argued that abstention is mandatory under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1334(c)(2). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), it is unclear whether the bankruptcy court could even exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Creditor’s state law intentional tort claims. For this reason, the Court finds it to be necessary to grant relief from the automatic stay.


Nevertheless, Creditor makes reference to the non-dischargeability of any resulting judgment secured in state court. It appears that in order to secure non-dischargeability, Creditor would be required to file an adversary complaint more than three months prior to the currently scheduled state court trial. On the record before the Court, it is unclear whether such an adversary proceeding would require the relevant issues to be relitigated. Therefore, notwithstanding the above, this Court does have some concerns that it is possible that Creditor could ultimately end up with two simultaneous, or sequential, courses of litigation.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Karl W Detlefsen Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Movant(s):

Jennifer Maslar Represented By Sanaz S Bereliani

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20714


Kenneth Ray Flanagan and Krista Ann Flanagan


Chapter 7


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6041 Gold Spirit Street, Corona, CA 92880


MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA N.A.


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). DENY request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kenneth Ray Flanagan Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Krista Ann Flanagan Pro Se

Movant(s):

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. Represented By Darlene C Vigil

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Kenneth Ray Flanagan and Krista Ann Flanagan


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20393


Teodocio Cruz Delgado and Carlota Lopez


Chapter 7


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Kia Optima, VIN: KNAGU4LE1H5013305


MOVANT: KIA MOTORS FINANCE


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Teodocio Cruz Delgado Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Joint Debtor(s):

Carlota Lopez Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Teodocio Cruz Delgado and Carlota Lopez


Chapter 7

Kia Motors Finance Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20263


Christopher George Whitaker and Laurie Hoover Whitaker


Chapter 7


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Ford Escape, VIN: 1FMCU0G93GUC59750


MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

  1. and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Christopher George Whitaker Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Laurie Hoover Whitaker Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

    Jennifer H Wang

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Christopher George Whitaker and Laurie Hoover Whitaker


    Chapter 7

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19376


    Matthew J Whyte and Laura M Whyte


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 74747 King Fisher Circle, Palm Desert, California 92260


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


    EH   


    Docket 28


    Tentative Ruling:

    2/26/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Regarding Movant’s argument that the automatic stay has terminated in the instant case, Movant’s assertion is incorrect because 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3) only applies when a previous case has been dismissed. Here, Debtors’ only previous case in the year prior to the petition date of the instant case resulted in a discharge. Therefore, the Court will DENY the request for relief under ¶ 14.


    Regarding Movant’s argument that the case was filed in bad faith due to previous bankruptcy filings, the Court notes that Debtors have two previous filings, both Chapter 7 cases which resulted in discharge. The instant case is a Chapter 13 proceeding, making this case what is commonly referred to as a Chapter 20 case. It has been uniformly established that the filing of a Chapter 13 case shortly after receiving a Chapter 7 discharge does not constitute bad faith. Therefore, the Court will DENY the request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(4).


    Regarding the remainder of Movant’s requests, the parties are to apprise the Court regarding the status of the arrears and adequate protection discussions, if any.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Debtor(s):


    Matthew J Whyte and Laura M Whyte


    Chapter 13

    Matthew J Whyte Represented By William J Howell

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Laura M Whyte Represented By William J Howell

    Movant(s):

    WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Represented By Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-18679


    Leobardo Joaquin Bautista


    Chapter 7


    #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee, VIN: 1C4RJFDJ2FC852691


    MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


    EH   


    Docket 20


    Tentative Ruling:

    2/26/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Leobardo Joaquin Bautista Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

    Movant(s):

    Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

    Jennifer H Wang

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Leobardo Joaquin Bautista


    Chapter 7

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-17700


    Nick Caropino


    Chapter 13


    #14.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2339 Three Bar Lane, Norco, CA 92860


    MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


    From: 1/29/19 EH   

    Docket 33

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/20/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    1/29/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3, and 12. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Nick Caropino Represented By Julie J Villalobos

    Movant(s):

    Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

    Angie M Marth

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Nick Caropino


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-16489


    Rebecca Moore


    Chapter 13


    #15.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23093 Canyon Hills Drive, Corona, California 92883


    MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    From: 1/8/19 EH   

    Docket 36

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/22/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    1/8/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(4) based on unauthorized transfer of interest and multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property, which the Court finds evidences a scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud Movant. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT relief from § 1301(a) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Rebecca Moore Represented By Edward T Weber

    Movant(s):

    HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Rebecca Moore


    Jamie D Hanawalt Gilbert R Yabes Raymond Jereza


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-15850


    Restart Solar, LLC


    Chapter 7


    #16.00 Motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Litigation Action


    Movant: HYPERION ENERGY MARKETING INC


    EH   


    Docket 25


    Tentative Ruling:

    2/26/19


    On July 12, 2018, Restart Solar, LLC ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Hyperion Energy Marketing Inc. ("Creditor") as the holder of an unsecured claim in the amount of $400,000.


    On January 23, 2019, Creditor filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for breach of contract, account stated, services rendered, quantum meruit, fraud, and negligent representation.


    When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:


    1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

    2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

    3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or

10:00 AM

CONT...


Restart Solar, LLC

proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11)


Chapter 7

whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."


In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:


The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


Here, the Court agrees that the above-enumerated factors appear to weigh in favor of granting Creditor relief from the automatic stay. Specifically, the state court proceeding includes state law claims and has been pending for more than a year.

Additionally, it appears that the state court litigation will not have any effect on the administration of the estate, especially because it appears that Creditor is primarily concerned with attempting to collect from Debtor’s principals. Furthermore, Creditor has argued that abstention is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), and the Court

10:00 AM

CONT...


Restart Solar, LLC


Chapter 7

agrees that it appears that abstention is statutorily required, further weighing in favor of relief from stay being granted. Therefore, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1), GRANT Creditor’s request under ¶ 2, and GRANT waiver of the Rule 4001 stay.


The Court will DENY Creditor’s request for relief from the co-debtor stay, because this is a Chapter 7 proceeding. The Court will DENY Creditor’s request for annulment of the automatic stay because Creditor has not provided any evidence or justification to support the relief requested. Finally, the Court is inclined to DENY the request for relief under ¶¶ 6 and 7 because Creditor has not provided any evidence or rationale to support the granting of these unusual requests.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Restart Solar, LLC Represented By

Sunil A Brahmbhatt

Movant(s):

Hyperion Energy Marketing, Inc. Represented By

Charles Shamash

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Ryan S Riddles Robert P Goe

10:00 AM

6:18-14725


Percylyn Agustin Basa


Chapter 13


#17.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14623 Meadowsweet Dr Eastvale, CA 92880


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR COOPER


From: 1/8/19, 2/5/19 EH   

Docket 56


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Percylyn Agustin Basa Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Angie M Marth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14164


Charles Williams, III


Chapter 13


#18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11028 White Oak Lane, Fontana, CA 92337


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from § 1301 co-debtor stay. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Williams, III Represented By Stephen L Burton

Movant(s):

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-11701


Wayne Anthony King and Traci Ann Zweck


Chapter 13


#19.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6580 Valinda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737


MOVANT: DITECH FINANCIAL LLC


From: 2/5/19 EH   

Docket 59

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

02/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


The Debtors propose an APO to resolve the Motion. Parties to update the Court regarding the status of negotiations.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Wayne Anthony King Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Traci Ann Zweck Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Ditech Financial LLC Represented By Jamie D Hanawalt

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Wayne Anthony King and Traci Ann Zweck

Caren J Castle


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-18340


Cary Allen Griggs and Heather Lynn Griggs


Chapter 13


#20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1230 Via Pintada, Riverside, CA 92506


MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 47

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition:Yes


Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions, if any.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cary Allen Griggs Represented By Ronald W Ask

Joint Debtor(s):

Heather Lynn Griggs Represented By Ronald W Ask

Movant(s):

HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By Nancy L Lee

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Cary Allen Griggs and Heather Lynn Griggs


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-16542


Mike A. Granados, Jr. and Carolynne Jeannette Granados


Chapter 13


#21.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 12370 Oaks Avenue, Chino, CA 91710


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


From: 1/29/19 EH   

Docket 38

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 1/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


The motion indicates that Debtors are four months delinquent on postpetition payments. Debtors’ opposition, however, appears to argue that Debtors are only approximately two payments delinquent. Parties to discuss this material discrepancy and whether parties desire to enter into an adequate protection agreement.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mike A. Granados Jr. Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Carolynne Jeannette Granados Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld Gabriella Gonzales

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Mike A. Granados, Jr. and Carolynne Jeannette Granados


Chapter 13

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Nancy L Lee

Dane W Exnowski

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-16439


Oscar Avila


Chapter 13


#22.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5219 Washington Avenue, Chino CA 91710


MOVANT: U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A.


EH   


Docket 63

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Oscar Avila Represented By

Sanaz S Bereliani

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Represented By

Ashish R Rawat Francis Laryea Christina J O

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-16114


Allan Omar Ramos


Chapter 13


#23.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2271 Davidson Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92405


MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 32

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Allan Omar Ramos Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC., and Represented By

Christina J O

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-13523


Loretta Chavis


Chapter 13


#24.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 837 Michigan Ave, Beaumont, CA 92223


MOVANT: SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC


From: 11/27/18, 1/29/19 EH   

Docket 26


Tentative Ruling:

11/27/2018


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Loretta Chavis Represented By Dan Perry

Movant(s):

Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc., Represented By

Nichole Glowin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-12748


William A. Mendez, II and Shawna D. Mendez


Chapter 7


#25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2006 FORD SUPER DUTY F250, VIN: 1FTS X21P X6EA 17380


MOVANT: MECHANICS BANK


EH   


Docket 147


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


As noted in the motion, Debtors received a discharge on August 15, 2018, which, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2), terminated the automatic stay as to Debtors. While Movant indicates that it is seeking relief from stay as to the estate, the Court notes that the subject property was abandoned by Trustee on May 21, 2018, thereby terminating the automatic stay as to the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 361(c)(1). As a result, there is no automatic stay in effect, and the Court will DENY the motion as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

William A. Mendez II Represented By Thomas J Polis

Joint Debtor(s):

Shawna D. Mendez Represented By Thomas J Polis

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


William A. Mendez, II and Shawna D. Mendez


Chapter 7

MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy Lindsey L Smith Carmela Pagay

10:00 AM

6:16-16909


Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


Chapter 13


#26.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 9617 Surrey Ave, Montclair, California 91763


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 1/29/19 EH   

Docket 234

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edward Edmund Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Georgia Parrilla Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


Chapter 13

Wells Fargo BAnk, N.A. Represented By April Harriott Sean C Ferry

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-15672


Daniel Guerrero and Christina Guerrero


Chapter 13


#27.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 25679 Motte Circle Romoland, CA 92585


MOVANT: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC


EH   


Docket 49

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/26/19 AT 10:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Guerrero Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Christina Guerrero Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Movant(s):

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC Represented By

Diana Torres-Brito Alexander G Meissner Asya Landa

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-11309


Aurelio Palma


Chapter 13


#28.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 676 East Scott St. Rialto, CA 92376


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


EH   


Docket 53

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/14/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Aurelio Palma Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

Movant(s):

Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Asya Landa

Melissa A Vermillion Bonni S Mantovani Diana Torres-Brito

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:15-20006


Carl J Charlot and Jacinta S Charlot


Chapter 13


#29.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 Kia Optima, VIN: 5XXGM4A76CG037577


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


EH   


Docket 81

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Carl J Charlot Represented By

Michael A Younge

Joint Debtor(s):

Jacinta S Charlot Represented By Michael A Younge

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:15-14687


Vernia Jean Mosby


Chapter 13


#30.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11582 Holly Oak Dr, Fontana, California 92337


MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


EH   


Docket 111


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vernia Jean Mosby Represented By Nancy Korompis

Movant(s):

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

Arnold L Graff Joseph C Delmotte Gilbert R Yabes

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10939


Jennifer Meador


Chapter 13


#30.10 Amended Motion (related document(s): 4 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: Real Property 1301 3rd St #7, Calimesa


MOVANT: LAUREL ST PARTNERS


EH   


Docket 11

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jennifer Meador Pro Se

Movant(s):

Laurel St. Partners Represented By William E Windham

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-20003


LC Stahl LLC


Chapter 11


#31.00 Motion for Relief from Stay Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. Section 362 (with supporting declarations) (Real Property)


MOVANT: LOAN FUNDER LLC, SERIES 1829


Also #32 EH   

Docket 52

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LC Stahl LLC Represented By

Stuart J Wald

Movant(s):

Loan Funder LLC, Series 1829 Represented By Jeffrey N Brown

2:00 PM

6:18-20003


LC Stahl LLC


Chapter 11


#32.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 1/8/19 Also #31

EH       


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LC Stahl LLC Represented By

Stuart J Wald

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#33.00 CONT Motion To Compel Payment Of Administrative Rent Or Immediate Rejection Of Lease And Related Relief


From: 11/27/18, 12/18/18 Also #34

EH   


Docket 194

Tentative Ruling:

2/26/19

BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On November 2, 2018, The H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Berger Foundation") filed its motion to compel payment of administrative rent or immediate rejection of lease and related relief. On November 13, 2018, Debtor filed its opposition.

The subject of the motion is a lease dated August 15, 2008, for certain nonresidential real property located in Palm Desert, California. According to Berger Foundation, "[p] ursuant to the terms of lease, should the Debtor continue to occupy the premises after August 14, 2018, the lease obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month," [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 2] a doubling of the contractual monthly rental obligation. Berger Foundation requests: (1) that Debtor be compelled to cure the default on the lease or surrender the premises; and (2) allowance of an administrative expense claim in the amount of $3,040.55 per day.

2:00 PM

CONT...

Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

Chapter 11


Debtor’s opposition argued that: (1) the lease cannot be assumed or rejected because the lease expired the day before the petition date; and (2) because the lease expired prepetition, the legal basis for the requested administrative expense claim is invalid.


On November 27, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the matter, and continue the hearing for three weeks for supplemental briefing. On December 18, 2018, the Court posted a tentative ruling prior to the continued hearing, indicating that it was inclined to hold that the lease terminated pre-petition, and, therefore, the lease was not an executory contract. The Court continued the matter again, allowing the parties the opportunity to further brief the matter, and to enable the parties to supplement the record to afford the Court the opportunity to assess Berger Foundation’s request for administrative rent.


On January 18, 2019, Berger Foundation filed a supplement. On February 1, 2019, Debtor filed a response. Because Berger Foundation has not presented any new argument relating to 11 U.S.C. § 365, the Court is not inclined to modify its tentative, which is outlined in the first portion of the discussion section. Instead, the Court will address the parties’ arguments relating to 11 U.S.C. § 503.


DISCUSSION



I. 11 U.S.C. § 365


The critical legal question at issue is whether the operative lease expired prepetition. Berger Foundation relies on 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) as the basis for both its requests, and that provision states:

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

The trustee shall timely perform all the obligations of the debtor, except those specified in section 365(b)(2), arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, until such lease is assumed or rejected, notwithstanding section 503(b)(1) of this title. The court may extend, for cause, the time for performance of any such obligation that arises within 60 days after the date of the order for relief, but the time for performance shall not be extended beyond such 60-day period. This subsection shall not be deemed to affect the trustee’s obligations under the provisions of subsection (b) or (f) of the section. Acceptance of any such performance does not constitute waiver or relinquishment of the lessor’s rights under such lease or under this title.


(emphasis added).


As a general rule, an expired lease is no longer executory, and, therefore, is no longer assumable, if the lease expired prepetition. See, e.g., In re Acorn Invs., 8 B.R. 506, 509-10 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1981). Therefore, the Court must determine whether the lease at issue expired prepetition. See Robinson v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 54 F.3d 316, 320 (7th Cir. 1995) ("the federal law allowing ‘unexpired’ leases to be assumed calls for a determination whether a lease has ended under state law."). Here, Debtor argues that the lease expired pre-petition, resulting in a holdover tenancy, in which no privity of contract exists, while Berger Foundation argues that the lease became a month to month tenancy and, therefore, was not expired. While the parties appear to be agree on the operative legal standard, the parties disagree regarding how that standard applies to the facts here


Both parties refer to CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, which states:


If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it appears the above legal provision should not actually be applicable to the instant situation. Specifically, CAL. CIV. CODE

§ 1940(a), (c) states the following:


  1. Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter shall apply to all persons who hire dwelling units located within this state included tenants, boarders, lodgers, and others, however denominated.


    (c) "Dwelling unit" means a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household.


    Here, the lease at issue was a commercial lease which would remove the lease from the purview of § 1945 based upon the plain language of § 1940. Nevertheless, the Court notes that there is ample caselaw, some of which is cited by the parties, in which California courts have applied § 1945 to commercial property. Although it is not clear to this Court why that section is inapplicable to the instant situation, the Court will defer to the state law courts on this issue of state law.


    Ultimately, the argument of Berger Foundation boils down to the following:


    In this case, after the expiration of the Lease terms (August 14, 2018), Debtor continued to occupy the Premises. Berger continued to accept the Debtor as a tenant and took no action to terminate the Debtor’s leasehold interest in the Premises. To the contrary, as this Court’s record reflects, from the outset, Berger has been focusing on receiving rent payments and, in fact, received post-petition payments of not less than $15,000 as of the date of this Reply.

    Clearly, pursuant to Civil Code § 1945 and applicable California authority, the Lease converted to a month-to-month tenancy after August 14, 2018.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11

    [Dkt. No. 278, pg. 3]. Debtor’s argument, on the other hand, appears to be that Berger Foundation’s actions in this case simply do not reflect clear consent to Debtor’s continued possession of the premises.


    First, there appears to be a timing issue which has not been identified by the parties. The operative lease expired, by its own terms, on August 14, 2018. The instant bankruptcy was filed on August 15, 2018. Therefore, assuming, arguendo, that rent was paid and accepted in a matter which would trigger the statutory presumption in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, such event would have occurred after the petition date. City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) ("The statute provides the landlord’s consent to the holding over is implied if he accepts rent from the tenant after the expiration of the lease. This consent to the holding over must be established before the statutory presumption of the same terms becomes effective.") (emphasis added). Therefore, the lease at issue would have been, as of the petition date, expired and not assumable. Quite simply, on the record before the Court, it is implausible that Berger Foundation could have undertaken any action in the fraction of the day before the instant bankruptcy filing which would have indicated consent to the creation of a month-to-month tenancy.


    Furthermore, outside of the bankruptcy law issues raised above, Berger Foundation’s position does not seem to be compatible with state law. Quite simply, the presumptions outlined in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 are analogous to contractual principles in common law. By remaining in possession of the property, and tendering a rental payment, a holdover tenant is making an offer; by accepting such tender, the landlord manifests his assent to such offer. Berger Foundation seems to be positing that the payment of any rent whatsoever, even a single dollar, subsequently accepted by the landlord, results in the extension of the lease terms on the original contractual terms.


    Berger Foundation’s argument, however, is inconsistent with fundamental contractual principles, for, in the case of a minimal rental payment, it cannot be said that either party has made an offer, accepted by the other party, to renew the original lease terms. At best, the landlord’s implied acquiescence may be construed as an offer, yet the tenant’s tender of a minimal rental payment can only be interpreted as a counter-offer, since such a tender would be materially inconsistent with the terms of the offer. If the landlord accepts this reduced tender, the terms agreed upon must be construed as those set forth in the counter-offer, a principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076:

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    The person to whom a tender is made must, at the time, specify any objection he may have to the money, instrument, or property, or he must be deemed to have waived it; and if the objection be to the amount of money, the terms of the instrument, or the amount or kind of property, he must specify the amount, terms, or kind which he requires, or be precluded from objecting afterwards.


    See also Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940) ("It is now settled by these cases that where the tenant tenders, and the landlord accepts, as full payment of the rent, a less monthly rental than that reserved in the lease, he cannot later recover the unpaid balance of the rent reserved.")


    While the above principle, a principle of estoppel, is properly subject to the Court’s consideration of equities, such consideration would simply not change the fact that a reduced monthly rental payment cannot be considered acquiescence to a renewal of the original contractual terms. In the absence of such mutual agreement to be bound to the original terms, there simply cannot be contractual privity.


    Finally, the Court notes that the operation of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 is to create a rebuttable presumption that the least has been extended. Assuming, arguendo, that the bankruptcy and contract law issues noted above were not present, it appears probable that such a presumption would be rebutted in the instant case. The Court is not aware of any action taken by Debtor that would support a conclusion that Debtor intended to renew the lease on the original terms, and Berger Foundation has made repeated statements which would be incompatible with the presumption in § 1945. For instance, in the instant motion Berger Foundation made the following statements, which are implicitly and explicitly more compatible with a holdover tenancy than a month-to-month tenancy:


    -"Since the filing of this case, the Debtor has continued, and continues, to occupy the Premises, yet has failed to pay the rental obligation due and owing." [Dkt. No 194, pg. 2 and 4]

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11

    -"Based on the fact that the Debtor remained as a holdover tenant, and pursuant to the terms of the Lease, the rental obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 4 and 10] (emphasis added).


    -"Here, the Debtor has made no payments while continuing to occupy the Premises." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 6].


    For the reasons outlined above, the Court concludes that the lease in question was expired as of the petition date because nothing in the record indicates that Berger Foundation provided consent to continued possession of the premises in the less than one-day period between the expiration of the lease and the instant bankruptcy filing. To the extent that Berger Foundation argues that postpetition acts retroactively revived the original lease terms, such retroactive revival would seem to be incompatible with City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

    Furthermore, because Debtor did not remotely act in accordance with the original lease terms, it cannot be said that Debtor actions constituted a renewal of those terms; if any lease was entered into postpetition, it must have been on substantially different terms, which would require notice and a hearing. Additionally, even if the statutory presumption of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 were applicable in the instant situation, the Court concludes that such presumption would likely be rebutted based on the fact that Debtor did not act in accordance with the original terms, and based on Berger Foundation’s explicit characterization of Debtor as a holdover tenant.


    II. 11 U.S.C. § 503


    11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) states:


  2. After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including –

(1)(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate including –

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

"An administrative rent claim under this standard is value ‘under an objective worth standard that measures the fair and reasonable value of the lease.’" In re Pac.-Atl.

Trading Co., 27 F.3d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Dant & Russell, Inc., 853 F.2d 700, 707 (9th Cir. 1988)). "The rent reserved in the lease is presumptive evidence of fair and reasonable value, but the presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating that the reasonable worth of the lease differs from the contract rate." In re Thompson, 788 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1986). "Where the debtor or trustee only uses a portion of the lease property, however, he must pay an administrative expense only for that portion of the property." Id. at 562. The Court continued the previous hearing for the parties to provide evidence and argument regarding the objective value of the portion of the leased property utilized by Debtor.


Debtor first, very briefly, argues that the parties have implicitly agreed to a rental rate of $5,000 per month, and that that amount should be used in calculating Berger Foundation’s administrative claim. Debtor appears to base this argument on the Court’s tentative ruling for the hearing of December 18, 2018; specifically, Debtor refers to Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940). The Court rejects Debtor’s approach. The relevant language in the Court’s tentative ruling is used to illustrate that, in the context of a holdover tenancy, the original contractual terms do not necessarily control when the parties have acted in a manner which is materially inconsistent with those terms. Importantly, here, the $5,000 payment discussed by Debtor is not necessarily a "rental" payment, but is more accurately characterized as an "adequate protection" payment. Adequate protection payments may be in amounts substantially different than the actual amount due – for instant, an adequate protection payment may be interest only, or may attempt to estimate the depreciation of the estate, in order to protect the secured creditor’s interest.

Furthermore, it would not be equitable to apply the estoppel principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076 in the context of bankruptcy, where the lender does have the ability to reject the payment and, without constraint, exercise its traditional state law rights.


Debtor’s primary argument is that the contract rate of the lease is an "inappropriate measure" of the objective worth of the lease because Debtor did not use the entirety of the leased premises. Specifically, Debtor argues that it only utilized 4,000 square feet of the leased premises. Berger Foundation, on the other hand, makes two arguments in response: (1) that the entirety of the premises were necessary for Debtor to maintain its CMS license; and (2) that Debtor actually utilized the majority of the premises. In support of its argument, Debtor has provided declarations attesting that Debtor only

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

used 4,000 square feet, and that, after moving into a smaller space, Debtor did not lose any funding, or, presumably, its license. Berger Foundation has provided a declaration which includes the vague statement that Debtor "continued to utilize the majority of the Premises."


The record provided to the Court is, unfortunately, unclear and incapable of providing the necessary evidentiary framework for a precise mathematical calculation. First, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether Debtor used only 4,000 square feet.

Second, and more importantly, the evidence seems to suggest, but is still unclear, that the Debtor required all the space to maintain its license (or at least thought it had to). Debtor’s response states the following: "Although it is true the Debtor was concerned it might lose funding if it lost its physical address in Palm Desert by hastily vacating the Premises, a belief that the Debtor needed a physical address for funding does not trump the Ninth Circuit requirement that the Debtor actually use the entirety of the Premises. In fact, Berger does not cite to any authority for this proposition." [Dkt. No. 323, pg. 10, lines 6-10].


On the record before it, the Court concludes Debtor has failed to demonstrate it did not use the entirety of the premises. More specifically, the Court concludes that there are a variety of ways that a space can be "used," and that that term is not limited to physical occupancy by the tenant. While, again, the record before the Court is less than clear, it appears that Debtor represented that it had control over, and occupancy of, the entirety of the premises for purposes of its licensing and funding. As a result, it appears Debtor continued to "use" the leased premises for some purposes, even if such use did not necessarily amount to physical use of the entirety of the premises for normal business operations. Because Debtor has not established that the use of the full premises was not reasonably necessary to preserve the estate, the Court rejects Debtor’s attempt to reduce the space used to 4,000 square foot. As a result, the Court concludes that Debtor has not rebutted the presumption that the contract rate represents the reasonable value of the leased premises used.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of allowing Berger

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

Foundation an administrative claim in the amount of $172,543.53, less amounts received, and DENY the remainder of the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

Movant(s):

The H. N. and Frances C. Berger Represented By

David B Golubchik

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#34.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/13/18, 12/18/18


Also #33 EH   

Docket 4


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11


#35.00 CONT First Omnibus Objection of Debtor-In-Possession Allied Injury Management, Inc. Seeking Disallowance of Certain Proofs of Claim (Holding Date)


From: 11/8/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 3/7/17,4/4/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

11/27/18


Also #36 EH   

Docket 83


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Movant(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11


#36.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 6/7/16, 8/30/16, 9/14/16, 10/20/16, 10/25/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

11/27/18


Also #35 EH   

Docket 7

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:16-01279 Allied Injury Management, Inc. v. One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group


#37.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01279. Complaint by Allied Injury Management, Inc. against One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group & Therapy, Inc., One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group, Inc., Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Group, Inc.. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; and (3) Unjust Enrichment Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 1/24/17, 3/7/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Represented By

Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Plaintiff(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:16-01225 Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC v. Allied Injury Management,


#38.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC against Allied Injury Management, Inc., John C. Larson. 02 - Other e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy

HOLDING DATE


From: 11/1/16, 12/6/16, 1/31/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 10/3/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

John C. Larson Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Cambridge Medical Funding Group Represented By

Kenneth Hennesay

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#39.00 CONT Disclosure Statement Describing Debtors Chapter 11 Plan From: 1/29/19

EH   


Docket 87


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#40.00 Motion for approval of chapter 11 disclosure statement for Debtor's Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan


Also #41 EH   

Docket 155


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Movant(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#41.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18, 1/15/19


Also #40 EH   

Docket 5


Tentative Ruling:

12/19/2018


All parties have authorization to appear telephonically for the 12/19/2018 Status Conference.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

11:00 AM

6:14-16813


M. A. Tabor


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01128 Frealy v. Trotochau et al


#1.00 CONT Application and Order for Appearance and Examination From: 12/5/18, 12/11/18, 12/20/18

EH       


Docket 53

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

M. A. Tabor Represented By

Judith Runyon

Defendant(s):

Robin Sherrie Trotochau Pro Se

Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc. Represented By

Leib M Lerner

Movant(s):

Todd A. Frealy Represented By Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith

Plaintiff(s):

Todd A. Frealy Represented By Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


M. A. Tabor


Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith


Chapter 7

11:00 AM

6:17-12858


Scott Leigh Baumann and Holly Lynn Baumann


Chapter 7


#2.00 CONT Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation From: 1/30/19

EH   


Docket 52

Tentative Ruling:


02/27/2019


In his declaration filed in support of the Trustee’s Final Report and in support of the Application for Compensation of Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Brill LLP ("LNBYB"), the Trustee indicates that he enlisted the assistance of LNBYB for investigation and administration of assets. In connection with their assistance, LNBYB filed an adversary complaint (the "Adversary") against Michael and Linda Rizzo to avoid and recover transfer of certain real property located in Carlsbad, CA (the "Kalpati Property"). The Trustee asserts that documents provided by the Defendants during the discovery period supported the Defendants’ assertions that there was consideration on account of the transfer. The Trustee dismissed the Adversary on May 15, 2018.


On October 12, 2018, subsequent to LNBYB’s filing of its Fee Application, the Debtors filed objection to LNBYB’s fees. The Debtors assert in their Objection that had LNBYB conducted initial investigation of the claims underlying the Adversary, there would not have been a need to prepare and file the Adversary complaint.

Debtors request that LNBYB’s fees be reduced by $9,525 (the amounts expended in connection with the Adversary).


As to the Debtors’ assertion that there was insufficient initial investigation done by

11:00 AM

CONT...


Scott Leigh Baumann and Holly Lynn Baumann


Chapter 7

LNBYB prior to preparing the Adversary, LNBYB responds that it had sufficient information to believe the transfer was voidable prior to preparation of the Adversary because the Debtors had been threatened with suit around the same time of the transfer at issue, and importantly, because "the Debtors received less than reasonably equivalent consideration for the Transfer as the Grant Deed evidencing the Transfer stated on its face: ‘This is a bonafide gift and the grantor received nothing in return, R&T 11911.’" (Reply at 3). Additionally, the Court notes that Page 18 of the Fee Application indicates that "analysis of the transfer deeds re RP" occurred prior to the preparation of the actual complaint, and finally, the Trustee asserts that it took the Rizzo defendants over six months to provide a complete explanation concerning the transfer. (Pagay Decl. ¶6). In sum, the evidence supports a conclusion that LNBYB took reasonable steps to ensure that the value of the Kalpati Property was preserved for the benefit of creditors in the event that the transfer turned out to be avoidable.


The Court is inclined to find that Debtors’ Opposition provides insufficient factual analysis to justify the requested reduction in LNBYB’s fees. As indicated above and for the reasons stated in LNBYB’s reply, the Court is inclined to overrule Debtors’ objections.


The applications for compensation of Counsel for the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the Application of the associated professional, the following administrative claims will be allowed:


Trustee Fees:

$ 5,100

Trustee Expenses:

$ 298.51

Attorney Fees:

$15,075

Attorney Costs:

$1,020.80


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Scott Leigh Baumann and Holly Lynn Baumann


Chapter 7

Scott Leigh Baumann Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Holly Lynn Baumann Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy Carmela Pagay

11:00 AM

6:17-17749


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7


#3.00 Objection to Debtor's Claimed Homestead Exemption EH   

Docket 72

Tentative Ruling:

02/27/2019


BACKGROUND


On September 15, 2017, an involuntary petition was filed by Creditor Cleo Sonnenfeld ("Petitioner") as to Joshua Cord Richardson ("Debtor"). By stipulation of the parties, the Order for relief was entered on November 8, 2017. Todd Frealy is the duly appointed chapter 7 trustee ("Trustee").


The filing was precipitated by a dispute between Debtor and Petitioner related to Petitioner’s loaning Debtor $225,000 between April and July 2012 (the "Loan").

The money was loaned to permit Debtor to purchase real property located at 13710 Oakley Dr. in Moreno Valley, California ("Property"). Debtor allegedly promised Petitioner (who is Debtor’s elderly uncle), a first priority lien on the Property to secure the Loan. Debtor allegedly never provided the Deed of Trust and subsequently defaulted on the Loan. Debtor subsequently also borrowed $65,000 from Val-Chris Investments, Inc. which loan was secured by a deed of trust; and $200,000 from the Samir and Mona Sanghani Living Trust 2014 which loan was secured by a deed of trust against the Property. The Petitioner filed an action against the Debtor in state court on January 11, 2017, which he removed to the bankruptcy court following the entry of the order for relief (the "Removed Action"). The Trustee subsequently settled the claims against the Debtor’s estate via FRBP 9019. As part of the settlement, judgment was entered against the Debtor in the Removed Action and the Petitioner agreed to object to the exemption of the Debtor in the Property.


On February 6, 2019, Petitioner filed his objection to the Debtor’s claimed homestead exemption (the "Objection"). No opposition was filed by the Debtor. The Trustee filed a notice of joinder on February 21, 2019.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

TENTATIVE RULING


The Petitioner’s arguments that the constructive trust should supersede the Debtor’s rights to a homestead exemption are persuasive. However, the petition date was in 2017 and Petitioner is filing an objection to the homestead exemption in 2019. The Objection does not squarely address the interaction of state law regarding the effect of a constructive trust with FRBP 4003(b) which requires that written objection to a claim of exemption be filed by an interested party within 30 days after the meeting of creditors is concluded. Here, there appears to have been no amendment to schedule C since that schedule was originally filed with the Court in 2017. As such, the deadline for filing this Objection appears to have lapsed.


The Court is inclined to continue the hearing to permit the Petitioner to address the FRBP 4003(b) deadline issue.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

11:00 AM

6:17-18300


Deborah Stevenson


Chapter 7


#4.00 CONT Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien with County of San Bernardino From: 1/30/19

EH   


Docket 57

Tentative Ruling:


02/27/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Debtor’s motion was set for hearing because it appeared that the County of San Bernardino’s judgment lien might have stemmed from the Western Riverside Council of Governments assessment. The Debtor has now provided evidence that the County’s judgment lien is unrelated to the WRCOG assessment (which is an unavoidable statutory lien). Instead, the County’s lien is based on a state court complaint for recovery of monies owed to the County by virtue of its provision of emergency services to the Debtor. Based on the Motion and supplemental pleadings, the Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion in accordance with the Debtor’s attachment to her 522f Motion. The secured claim of the County shall be limited to $4,479.79. The County’s lien is avoided as to any amount in excess of $4,479.79. The remainder of the County’s lien shall be treated as a nonpriority unsecured claim to be paid pro rata with other nonpriority unsecured claims.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge an order within 7 days.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Deborah Stevenson


Chapter 7

Deborah Stevenson Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

Deborah Stevenson Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-12167


Troy Lee and Victoria Aurora Lee


Chapter 7


#5.00 Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien with Canyon Lake Property Owners Association re Superior Court Of Riverside County - Southwest Justice Center Docket Number SWS1402022


Also #6 EH   

Docket 29

Tentative Ruling:


02/27/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None

The Court has reviewed the authorities cited by the Debtor and agrees that under California law, the statutory lien of the Western Riverside Council of Governments constitutes a first priority lien on the Property regardless of the date of its recording. As such, when adding together the liens of the WRCOG and Pennymac, plus the Debtor’s claimed exemption, the calculation under § 522(f) yields an amount in excess of the Property’s fair market value. Thus, there is no equity for the liens of the HOA to attach to and these liens are avoidable.


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motions. The HOA’s liens are avoided as impairing fully the Debtors’ claimed exemption.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge an order within 7 days.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Troy Lee Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Troy Lee and Victoria Aurora Lee


Arnold H. Wuhrman


Chapter 7

Joint Debtor(s):

Victoria Aurora Lee Represented By

Arnold H. Wuhrman

Movant(s):

Troy Lee Represented By

Arnold H. Wuhrman

Victoria Aurora Lee Represented By

Arnold H. Wuhrman

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-12167


Troy Lee and Victoria Aurora Lee


Chapter 7


#6.00 Motion to Avoid Judicial Lien with Canyon Lake Property Owners Association re Superior Court Of Riverside County - Riverside Historic Courthouse Docket Number RIC1510388


Also #5 EH   


Docket 30

Tentative Ruling:


02/27/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None

The Court has reviewed the authorities cited by the Debtor and agrees that under California law, the statutory lien of the Western Riverside Council of Governments constitutes a first priority lien on the Property regardless of the date of its recording. As such, when adding together the liens of the WRCOG and Pennymac, plus the Debtor’s claimed exemption, the calculation under § 522(f) yields an amount in excess of the Property’s fair market value. Thus, there is no equity for the liens of the HOA to attach to and these liens are avoidable.


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motions. The HOA’s liens are avoided as impairing fully the Debtors’ claimed exemption.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge an order within 7 days.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Troy Lee and Victoria Aurora Lee


Chapter 7

Troy Lee Represented By

Arnold H. Wuhrman

Joint Debtor(s):

Victoria Aurora Lee Represented By

Arnold H. Wuhrman

Movant(s):

Troy Lee Represented By

Arnold H. Wuhrman

Victoria Aurora Lee Represented By

Arnold H. Wuhrman

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-19647


Sean Karadas


Chapter 7


#7.00 Order To Show Cause Why Debtor Should Not Be Held In Contempt For Failure To Comply With The Court's Order For Turnover Of Property Of The Estate


EH   


Docket 62


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sean Karadas Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Thomas J Eastmond

11:00 AM

6:16-19947


Melissa Lynn Dixson


Chapter 7


#8.00 CONT Show Cause Hearing RE: [13] Motion For Contempt Violation Discharge Order


From: 1/9/19 EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Movant(s):

Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-17350


Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


Chapter 7


#9.00 Request for Assignment to Mediation Program Motion for Order Referring Contested Matter to Mediation Pursuant to Third Amended General Order No. 95-1 and 11 U.S.C. § 105


Also #10 EH   

Docket 198

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dean L. Springer Sr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Tami Jo Springer Pro Se

Movant(s):

Hilder & Associates Represented By

Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Timothy W Evanston

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

11:00 AM

6:14-17350


Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


Chapter 7


#10.00 CONT Motion for Order Requiring Disgorgement of Funds from Hilder & Associates


From: 1/30/19 Also #9

EH   


Docket 192

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/17/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dean L. Springer Sr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Tami Jo Springer Pro Se

Movant(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

11:00 AM

6:15-21418


James Lloyd Walker


Chapter 7


#11.00 CONT Order To Show Cause Why The Debtor Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of The Court's Turnover Order


From: 2/7/19 EH   

Docket 138


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

James Lloyd Walker Represented By

Andrew Edward Smyth

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#12.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re Another Meridian Company LLC


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18


Also #13 & #14 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#13.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re ASR Constructors Inc


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18


Also #12 & #14 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#14.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re Inland Machinery, Inc


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18


Also #12 & #13 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#15.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01286. Complaint by ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation, Another Meridian Company, LLC, Inland Machinery, Inc. against Gotte Electric, Inc., Insurance Company Of The West, Employment Development Department, Trico-Savi Business Park, L.P., a California limited partnership, Angela Denise McKnight, Steven Schonder, Western Alliance Bank, an Arizona corporation, United states of america, Carlin Law Group APC, Ledcor Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

Complaint in Interpleader Nature of Suit: (02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) (Bastian, James)

Trico-Savi Business Park L.P. - Dismissed 12/28/17

Western Alliance Bank, dba Torrey Pines Bank - Dismissed 2/1/18 Gotte Electric, Inc - Dismissed 3/14/18

Ledcor Construction Inc - Dismissed 3/26/18


From: 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation

David B Shemano Howard J Weg


Chapter 11

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

United states of america Represented By Charles Parker Najah J Shariff

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01303 Cisneros v. AMERICAN EXPRESS


#16.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01303. Complaint by

A. Cisneros against AMERICAN EXPRESS. (Charge To Estate $350). For Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 12/30/15, 1/13/16, 3/23/16, 5/25/16, 6/29/16, 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 5/3/17 9/13/17, 12/13/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 6/11/18, 8/22/18, 11/28/18


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/29/19 AT 2:00 PM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

AMERICAN EXPRESS Represented By Robert S Lampl Chad V Haes

Plaintiff(s):

A. Cisneros Represented By

D Edward Hays Chad V Haes

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01308 Cisneros v. BWI CONSULTING, LLC et al


#17.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01308. Complaint by

A. Cisneros against BWI CONSULTING, LLC, Black and White, Inc., BLACK AND WHITE BILLING COMPANY, BLACK AND WHITE INK, MEHRAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. (Charge To Estate $350). for Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 1/13/16, 3/23/16, 5/25/16, 7/27/16, 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 5/3/17, 9/13/17, 12/13/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 6/11/18, 8/22/18, 11/28/18


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/29/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

BWI CONSULTING, LLC Pro Se

Black and White, Inc. Pro Se

BLACK AND WHITE BILLING Pro Se

BLACK AND WHITE INK Pro Se

MEHRAN DEVELOPMENT Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

A. Cisneros Represented By

D Edward Hays Chad V Haes

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01163 Revere Financial Corporation v. Burns


#18.00 CONT Motion for Protective Order From: 12/14/18, 1/30/19

Also #19 EH   

Docket 117

Tentative Ruling:

02/27/2019


BACKGROUND


On June 23, 2016, Liquidating Trustee Revere Financial Corporation ("Revere" or "Plaintiff") filed the instant adversary proceeding against non-debtor Don Cameron Burns ("Defendant" or "Burns"). Revere’s complaint asserts generally that the Defendant was an insider of Douglas Jay Roger (the "Debtor"), that Defendant and Debtor were engaged in a scheme to hinder, delay and defraud the Debtor’s creditors, by making transfers of Debtor’s assets to Debtor-related entities, including to Defendant, for the purpose of avoiding those assets becoming subject to either the prepetition Receivership or to the Debtor’s chapter 7 filing. Among the claims alleged by Revere are claims of intentional fraudulent transfers, constructive fraudulent transfers, preferential transfers, and unauthorized postpetition transfers of the Debtor’s prepetition assets.


On November 7, 2018, the University Orthopaedic Group, Liberty Orthopedic Corporation, and OIC Medical Corporation (collectively, "Movants") filed a Motion for Protective Order. On the same date, the Debtor and interested party, Nicole Ebarb filed a Motion for Protective Order. Both the OIC and Debtor/Ebarb Motions were denied on standing grounds under FRCP 45. To cure this defect, OIC and Debtor/Ebarb had Don Burns file the instant Motion for Protective Order on February 13, 2018 ("Motion’). Revere filed opposition to the Motion on January 16, 2019

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

("Opposition"). Burns filed no reply to the Opposition.


DISCUSSION


Rule 26(c)

Burns in his Motion asserts that unlike the OIC and Debtor/Ebarb Motions, the instant Motion is brought under FRCP 26. FRCP(c) provides, in pertinent part, that


A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending -- or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.


Revere opposes the Motion partially on the grounds that Burns has no standing. Chief among Revere’s arguments is that Burns does not assert any personal interest in the subpoenaed materials. In support of this contention, Revere has expanded upon the cases cited by Burns to demonstrate that even under Rule 26(c), the party seeking a protective order as to a third-party supboena must demonstrate a person interest that may be harmed if a protective order does not issue. Specifically, in In re REMEC, Inc. Sec. Litig., the District Court held that ‘[a] party can move for a protective order in regard to a subpoena issued to a non-party if it believes its own interests are jeopardized by discovery sought from a third party and has standing under Rule 26(c) to seek a protective order regarding subpoenas issued to non-parties which seek irrelevant information. No. CIV 04CV1948 JLS AJB, 2008 WL 2282647, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 30, 2008)(emphasis added). Similarly, the District Court for the District of Columbia found that ‘[a] party generally lacks standing to challenge a subpoena issued to a third party absent a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest in the subpoenaed matter… A motion to quash, or for a protective order, should generally be made by the person from whom the documents or things are requested.’ Washington v. Thurgood Marshall Acad., 230 F.R.D. 18, 21 (D.D.C.),

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

on reconsideration, 232 F.R.D. 6 (D.D.C. 2005)(internal citations omitted).


As to these citations which Burns initially proffered, Revere is correct. Burns has not asserted any personal interest implicated by the subpoenaed materials. Indeed, the Motion itself is not even supported by so much as a declaration.


TENTATIVE RULING


Based on the foregoing, and for the other reasons stated in Revere’s Opposition, the Court is inclined to DENY the Motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.



Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns

Movant(s):

Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Don C Burns Don C Burns Don C Burns


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01163 Revere Financial Corporation v. Burns


#19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01163. Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Don C. Burns. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)


From: 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 1/11/17, 3/8/17, 6/7/17, 8/2/17, 8/23/17, 11/8/17, 1/31/18, 4/25/18


Also #18 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Carmela Pagay Franklin R Fraley Jr


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


#20.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (Fraley, Franklin)


From: 7/11/18, 8/22/18 EH   

Docket 40

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01114 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. The Blue Law Group, Inc, a


#21.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01114. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against The Blue Law Group, Inc, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


From: 7/10/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

The Blue Law Group, Inc, a Represented By Michael K Blue

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:17-10724


Bausman and Company Incorporated


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01180 Whitmore v. Sierra Forest Products, Inc. dba Atlas Lumber


#22.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Adversary Complaint by Robert S. Whitmore against Sierra Forest Products, Inc. dba Atlas Lumber. (Charge To Estate

$350.00). Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 91 - Declaratory judgment


From: 11/14/18, 1/30/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: NOTICE OF DISMISSAL FILED 1/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Bausman and Company Incorporated Represented By

William A Smelko

Defendant(s):

Sierra Forest Products, Inc. dba Atlas Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Caroline Djang

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By

Best Best & Krieger Caroline Djang

2:00 PM

6:17-13853


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01197 Itria Ventures, LLC v. Asif et al


#23.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Adversary case 6:17-ap-01197. Complaint by Itria Ventures, LLC against Malik Muhammad Asif, Zobia Asif. Fee Amount $350 Complaint Objecting To Dischargeability of Debt Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud))


From: 11/15/17, 12/6/17, 1/10/18, 6/6/18, 10/3/18, 11/7/18


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By David T Egli

Zobia Asif Represented By

David T Egli

Joint Debtor(s):

Zobia Asif Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Itria Ventures, LLC Represented By Michael F Chekian

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey

2:00 PM

6:17-17749


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01146 Sonnenfeld v. Richardson


#24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01146. Complaint by Cleo Sonnenfeld against Joshua Cord Richardson. (A)(4), and (A)(6); and to Deny Discharge Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 727(A)(3), and (A)(5) (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(66 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims)) (Masud, Laila)


From: 8/29/18, 1/30/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Defendant(s):

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Plaintiff(s):

Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Joshua Cord Richardson


Anthony A Friedman


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01057 Whitson et al v. Bastorous


#25.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Adversary case 6:18-ap-01057. Complaint by Blaine Whitson, Susan Whitson, Union Home Loan Profit Sharing Plan, Gurpaljit Deoll, Benny Winefeld, RM Holdings, LLC against Mark Bastorous. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 5/9/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

Blaine Whitson Represented By Benjamin Taylor

Susan Whitson Represented By Benjamin Taylor

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Union Home Loan Profit Sharing Represented By

Benjamin Taylor

Gurpaljit Deoll Represented By Benjamin Taylor

Benny Winefeld Represented By Benjamin Taylor

RM Holdings, LLC Represented By Benjamin Taylor

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01063 Chen et al v. Bastorous et al


#26.00 CONT Status Conference re Amended Complaint by Douglas L Mahaffey on behalf of Chienan Chen, Chun-Wu Li against Bernadette Shenouda, 3 Columnar Ladera LLC, Mike Bareh, Mark Bastorous, MB Capital Group LLC. (Dismissed as to Bernadette Shenouda 1/2/19)


From: 5/9/18, 6/6/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18 EH   

Docket 5


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

3 Columnar Ladera LLC Pro Se

Mike Bareh Represented By

Mirco J Haag Jason E Goldstein

MB Capital Group LLC Pro Se

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

Chienan Chen Represented By Douglas L Mahaffey

Chun-Wu Li Represented By

Douglas L Mahaffey

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01064 Gerges et al v. Bastorous et al


#27.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Adversary case 6:18-ap-01064. Complaint by Mona Gerges, Rafet Gerges, St. Mary Properties, LLC against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. False pretenses, False representation, actual fraud, 67- Dischargeability - 523(a)(4); Fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), Willful and malicious injury


From: 5/9/18, 5/16/18, 7/11/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 11/14/18, 1/30/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

Mona Gerges Represented By

Louis J Esbin

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Rafat Gerges Represented By

Louis J Esbin

St. Mary Properties, LLC Represented By Louis J Esbin

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01174 Pringle Ch 7 Trustee v. Shenouda et al


#28.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01174. Complaint by John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee against Violete Shenouda, Anwar Wagdy. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Complaint: (1) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550; (2) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550; (3) To Avoid Transfer Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 544(a)(3); (4) To Preserve Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 551; (5) For Declaratory Relief; (6) For Imposition of Resulting Trust; (7) For Imposition of Constructive Trust; and (8) For Attorneys' Fees and Costs Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Goodrich, David)


From: 10/31/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Violete Shenouda Represented By John J Lewis

Anwar Wagdy Represented By John J Lewis

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-19010


Sara Durham


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01020 SCE Federal Credit Union v. Durham


#29.00 CONT Motion for Default Judgment From: 1/30/19

Also #30 EH   

Docket 39

Tentative Ruling:


02/27/2019


On October 30, 2017, Sara Durham ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On January 8, 2018, SCE Federal Credit Union ("Plaintiff") filed a non- dischargeability complaint against Debtor. On February 8, 2018, Debtor filed her answer to the complaint.


On January 8, 2018, SCE Federal Credit Union filed a complaint asserting claims under §§ 523(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(14) against Sarah Durham (the "Complaint"). On May 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Debtor to respond to discovery. The Court granted the motion pursuant to an order entered June 6, 2018 (the "Production Order"). The Production Order further required Debtor to pay

$1,013.50 to Plaintiff if she failed to produce documents. On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the answer of Debtor and for entry of default. On October 29, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and issued an order striking the Debtor’s Answer. The Clerk of Court then entered default on October 31, 2018, on request of Plaintiff.


On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default Judgment (the "Motion"). The initially set hearing was continued as a result of the federal government shutdown. On February 12, 2019, the Debtor filed a response to the Motion. The Debtor asserts, in pertinent part, that she has been receiving mental health treatment for depression, anxiety and stress since September 2017; that she relapsed into use of drugs and alcohol which resulted in her failure to respond to requests from Plaintiff and failure to attend hearings. Debtor further asserts that she

2:00 PM

CONT...


Sara Durham


Chapter 7

has been in an inpatient treatment facility and was set to exit the facility on February 14, 2019. The Debtor requests additional time but does not specify what actions she will undertake to remedy the deficiencies that resulted in the striking of her Answer. The Debtor’s response is also not filed under penalty of perjury and attaches no evidence to corroborate the Debtor’s assertions.


DISCUSSION


The Court shall not rule on the Motion at this juncture. This Court requires a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of any request for entry of default judgment. In particular, where as here, the Plaintiff presumably seeks judgment on the three asserted claims in the Complaint it is insufficient to submit evidence to the Court with no analysis of how the evidence supports entry of judgment on all three claims. The Plaintiff provides no case authority and no analysis of the burdens and elements correspondent to each of the claims in the Complaint.


TENTATIVE RULING


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the Motion for Plaintiff to supplement the Motion with Points and Authorities.

Plaintiff to provide the Court with an estimate of time for when the pleadings can be filed.

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sara Durham Represented By

Edgar P Lombera

Defendant(s):

Sara Durham Pro Se

Movant(s):

SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

Bruce P. Needleman

2:00 PM

CONT...


Sara Durham


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

Bruce P. Needleman

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-19010


Sara Durham


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01020 SCE Federal Credit Union v. Durham


#30.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by SCE Federal Credit Union against Sara Durham. (14 ),(14A) priority tax claims)), 62 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud


From: 3/21/18, 6/27/18, 8/22/18, 10/24/18, 1/30/19


Also #29 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sara Durham Represented By

Edgar P Lombera

Defendant(s):

Sara Durham Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

Bruce P. Needleman

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-10939


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01100 Zamucen & Curren LLP v. Johnson


#31.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01100. Complaint by Zamucen & Curren LLP against Vance Zachary Johnson . (d),(e)))


From: 7/31/18, 10/3/18, 1/9/19, 1/30/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/19/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

Defendant(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

Plaintiff(s):

Zamucen & Curren LLP Represented By Patricia J Grace

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

2:00 PM

6:13-29922


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


#32.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment

(Holding Date)


From: 12/2/15, 2/17/16, 3/2/16, 3/16/16, 4/27/16, 9/21/16, 12/14/16, 6/21/17, 1/24/18, 1/31/18, 5/30/18, 10/10/18


Also #33 EH   

Docket 62


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Movant(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Plaintiff(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-29922


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


#33.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:14-ap-01070. Complaint by Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom, Eisenberg Law Firm, APC against Nancy Ann Howell. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 5/14/14, 7/2/14, 12/10/14, 3/18/15, 4/22/15, 5/20/15, 7/22/15, 10/28/15, 12/2/15, 2/17/16, 3/2/16, 3/16/16, 4/27/16, 9/21/16, 12/14/16, 6/21/17, 1/24/18,

1/31/18, 5/30/18, 10/10/18


Also #32 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:13-30625


John Martin Mata


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01089 Mata et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 et a


#34.00 Motion For Summary Judgment Also #35

EH   


Docket 33

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark

Defendant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

Joint Debtor(s):

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Damian P Richard


Chapter 7

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

Plaintiff(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-30625


John Martin Mata


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01089 Mata et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 et a


#35.00 CONT-Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01089. Complaint by John Martin Mata, Livier Mata against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-4, National

Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1. (Charge To Estate) - Filing Fee Not Required. Determination of Discharge Under 11 U.S.C. Sect 523(a)(8) Nature of Suit: 63 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(8), student loan, 91 - Declaratory judgment


From: 6/27/18, 8/22/18 Also #34

EH       


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark

Defendant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

Joint Debtor(s):

Livier Mata Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Michael E Clark


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-12027


Richard M. Thomas


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


#36.00 Motion to Set Aside Default Also #37 & #38

EH   


Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

02/27/2019


BACKGROUND


On March 14, 2018, Richard M. Thomas, III & Raquel Young (collectively "Debtors"; individually "Richard III" and "Raquel") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On June 25, 2018, Debtors received a discharge.


On July 18, 2018, Trustee filed a complaint against Amy Williams and Richard M. Thomas, Jr. (collectively "Defendants"; individually "Amy" and "Richard Jr.") for (1) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfer; (2) declaratory relief as to ownership of real property; and (3) authorization to sell property owned in part by non-debtor. On August 22, 2018, default was entered against Debtors. On October 15, 2018, Trustee filed a motion for default judgment ("MDJ")


Trustee’s complaint relates to certain real property located at 17232 Lakeview Ct., Fontana, CA 92336 (the "Property"). Trustee asserts that the Property was acquired by Richard III and Richard Jr. on September 9, 2014, and was transferred to Amy, for no consideration, thirty-seven days prior to the petition date. Trustee’s complaint contains seven claims for relief: (a) avoidance of fraudulent transfer – actual intent;

  1. three claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfer – constructive intent; (c) recovery of avoided transfer; (d) declaratory relief against Richard Jr.; and (e) approval for sale of real property owned, in part, by a non-debtor. Regarding the avoidance of a

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard M. Thomas


    Chapter 7

    fraudulent transfer, Trustee’s motion for default judgment appears to rest on the second claim for relief. Subsequent to the entry of default, Trustee and Defendant Amy stipulated to continuance of the hearing on the MDJ to permit the Defendant to seek to set aside the default.


    On February 6, 2019, Defendant Amy filed a Motion to Set Aside Default ("MSA"). The Trustee opposes the MSA.


    DISCUSSION


    THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE

    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) (made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr.P.

    7055) provides that "[f]or good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b)". FRBP 7055.

    To determine "good cause" under this Rule, a court must consider three

    factors:


    1. whether the party seeking to set aside the default engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default;

    2. whether it had no meritorious defense; or

    3. whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice the other party.


      United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Franchise Holding II v. Huntington Rests. Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 925–26 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 U.S. 949 (2005)). This test is disjunctive, such that a finding that any one of the factors is true is sufficient for the court to refuse to set aside the default. It is the same test used to determine whether a default judgment should be set aside under Civil Rule 60(b). Id. While a court has the discretion to refuse to set aside a default judgment for excusable neglect under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) if it finds one of the enumerated factors present, it is not mandatory that it do so. See Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2011). "Crucially, however, ‘judgment by default is a drastic step appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits.’ " Signed Personal Check No. 730 at 1091 (citing Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461,

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Richard M. Thomas


      Chapter 7

      463 (9th Cir.1984)).


      1. whether the party seeking to set aside the default engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default

        First, the Court does not credit Amy’s assertion that she did not understand that she was being sued when she received the Complaint. Nevertheless, Amy appeared at the September 26, 2018, Status Conference and was advised by the Court to seek assistance of counsel. Less than one month later, the Trustee filed a Motion for Default Judgement. Neither the Trustee nor Amy communicated with the other prior to the Trustee’s filing of the Motion for Default Judgment. The Trustee certainly moved aggressively, but on balance, the Court is persuaded that the entry of the default was due to the Amy’s inexcusable failure to take the initial summons and Complaint seriously.


      2. whether it had no meritorious defense

        The Defendant provided evidence that she paid $7,500 to the Debtor for the Subject Property with a promise to pay more after the Subject Property was flipped. The Trustee provides analysis of why the consideration and promise to pay constituted less than reasonably equivalent value. However, the Court finds that the payment is sufficiently more than a nominal amount of money which when coupled with the promise to pay at least indicates there is a possibility that Defendant Amy may have a defensible position.


      3. whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice the other party.

    As indicated in the Court’s analysis regarding culpable conduct, Defendant Amy’s inexcusable failure to read and take seriously the Complaint resulted in the default at issue. Her decision to take no action prior to the September Status Conference plus the additional time she took to find counsel after the Status Conference, coupled with her failure to communicate with Trustee regarding her efforts to find counsel, resulted in the filing of the instant MDJ. The Court finds that based on Defendant’s unexcused delays, setting aside of the default should be conditioned on her payment of the Trustee’s attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with preparation of the MDJ.


    Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion. Specifically, the existence of a potentially meritorious defense coupled with the public policy favoring

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard M. Thomas


    Chapter 7

    decisions on the merits warrants setting aside of the default, conditioned however on Defendant Amy likely paying some amount of the Trustee’s fees and costs incurred within a reasonable period after the September 26, 2018 Status Conference, and associated with preparation of the MDJ.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Defendant(s):

    Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

    Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Movant(s):

    Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

    Plaintiff(s):

    Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Frank X Ruggier

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard M. Thomas


    Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12027


    Richard M. Thomas


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


    #37.00 CONT Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Amy Williams and Richard M. Thomas, Jr


    From: 11/7/18, 12/12/18, 1/30/19 Also #36 & #38

    EH   


    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    Given the Court’s ruling on the MSA, the MDJ is conditionally moot as to Defendant Amy. As to Richard Jr., the motion was served on Richard Jr. at the Property. The motion for default judgment, however, contends that Richard Jr. does not have any equitable ownership in the Property. While residency is not clear from the motion, the motion specifically states "[t]he Trustee believes that Defendant Thomas is not currently residing in the Subject Property." The Court also notes that at various points in the motion, Trustee has confused the identity of Richard III and Richard Jr. For instance, paragraph 2 of the declaration states: "The debtor Richard M. Thomas aka Richard M. Thomas, Jr. initiated this Bankruptcy case by filing a voluntary petition" when, in fact, it was Richard III, not Richard Jr., who filed bankruptcy. Given this apparent confusion, and Trustee’s explicit contention that Richard Jr. is not residing at the Property, the Court will require further service on Richard Jr. or clear evidence establishing that service was proper.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard M. Thomas


    Chapter 7

    Defendant(s):

    Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

    Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Movant(s):

    Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Frank X Ruggier

    Plaintiff(s):

    Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Frank X Ruggier

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12027


    Richard M. Thomas


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


    #38.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01156. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Amy Williams, Richard M Thomas Jr.. (Charge To Estate) ($350.00). Complaint to: (1) Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfer; (2) Obtain Declaratory Relief as to Ownership of Real Property; and (3) Authorize Sale of Property Owned in Part by Non-Debtor Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer))


    From: 9/26/18, 11/7/18, 12/12/18, 1/30/19


    Also #36 & #37 EH       

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Defendant(s):

    Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

    Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Richard M. Thomas


    Chapter 7

    Plaintiff(s):

    Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Frank X Ruggier

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20477


    Connie Gutierrez


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01028 Whitmore v. Gutierrez et al


    #39.00 Order To Show Cause RE: [2] Motion for a temporary restraining order without notice, and (2) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued


    EH   


    Docket 2

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Connie Gutierrez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Defendant(s):

    Daniel Gutierrez Represented By Lane K Bogard

    Toby Gutierrez Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Julie Philippi

    Plaintiff(s):

    Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Julie Philippi

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

    11:00 AM

    6:13-18779


    Rigoberto Baez


    Chapter 13


    #1.00 CONT Motion For Order Denying Discharge Or Dismissing Case From: 1/31/19

    EH   


    Docket 172

    Tentative Ruling:

    1/31/19

    BACKGROUND


    On May 17, 2013, Rigoberto Baez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 25, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was subsequently amended on two occasions.


    On December 6, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of final cure mortgage payment. On December 27, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. filed a response, stating that Debtor was

    $11,338.57 delinquent in post-confirmation payments.


    On December 28, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to deny discharge or, in the alternative, dismiss the case. Because Trustee has only provided legal analysis support dismissal of the case, not citing any legal basis to deny a discharge in this situation, the Court will consider the motion as a motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The opposition asserts that Debtor disputes Wells Fargo’s accounting, and that Debtor will work with Wells Fargo to resolve the situation.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Rigoberto Baez


    Chapter 13

    DISCUSSION



    As noted by Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(6) states:


  2. Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including ---


(6) material default by the debtor with respect to a term of a confirmed plan


Trustee asserts that direct payments to Wells Fargo are payments under the plan, and the default in this case is material. Debtor has not provided any contrary legal authority on either point. The Court agrees with Trustee that direct payments to a lender are still considered payments under the plan. See, e.g., In Matter of Kessley, 655 Fed. Appx. 242, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); see also In re Evans, 543 B.R. 213 (Bankr.

E.D. Va. 2016) (collecting cases). The Court also agrees that the post-confirmation default of $11,338.57 is material, assuming that that figure is accurate.


TENTATIVE RULING



Debtor to apprise the Court of the status of the post-confirmation delinquency and any efforts to resolve the situation with Wells Fargo. Absent resolution, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13

Rigoberto Baez Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-16710


Sean Kirkpatrick


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Motion For Sanctions for Violation of the Automatic Stay From: 12/6/18, 12/20/18, 1/17/19

CASE DISMISSED 4/1/16


EH   


Docket 65

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/27/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sean Kirkpatrick Represented By Javier H Castillo

Movant(s):

Sean Kirkpatrick Represented By Javier H Castillo Javier H Castillo Javier H Castillo

Trustee(s):

Rod (MJ) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-15604


Mandy Catron


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2875 West June Place, San Bernardino, CA 92407


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK NA


From: 2/5/19 EH   

Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

02/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay and GRANT requests for relief under ¶¶ 3 and 12 of the prayer for relief. DENY request for relief from the co-debtor stay for lack of cause shown and DENY request for APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mandy Catron Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Darlene C Vigil

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Mandy Catron


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-15662


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion to Disallow Claims Cavalry SPV Also #5 & #6

EH   


Docket 50

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND:


On July 6, 2017, Jemill Humphrey ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On August 29, 2017, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On October 4, 2017, LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV") filed a proof of the claim in the amount of $980.29 ("Claim 11"). On November 14, 2017, Cavalry SPV I, LLC ("Cavalry") filed a proof of claim in the amount of $35,962.95 ("Claim 20"). On January 29, 2019, Debtor filed claim objections to Claim 11 and Claim 20. Debtor argues that both claims are barred by the statute of limitations.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim,

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13

that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


(b) Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jemill M Humphrey

(1) such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


Chapter 13


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 11 is based on "credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of May 22, 2007. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 11 is unenforceable.


Claim 20 is based on a "consumer loan." This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identified a last transaction date of June 2, 2008. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 20 is unenforceable.


Furthermore, the Court deems failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h).


TENTATIVE RULING

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISALLOWING Claim 11 and Claim 20 in their entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-15662


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


#5.00 Motion to Disallow Claims LVNV Funding Also #4 & #6

EH   


Docket 51

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND:


On July 6, 2017, Jemill Humphrey ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On August 29, 2017, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On October 4, 2017, LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV") filed a proof of the claim in the amount of $980.29 ("Claim 11"). On November 14, 2017, Cavalry SPV I, LLC ("Cavalry") filed a proof of claim in the amount of $35,962.95 ("Claim 20"). On January 29, 2019, Debtor filed claim objections to Claim 11 and Claim 20. Debtor argues that both claims are barred by the statute of limitations.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim,

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13

that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


(b) Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jemill M Humphrey

(1) such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


Chapter 13


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 11 is based on "credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of May 22, 2007. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 11 is unenforceable.


Claim 20 is based on a "consumer loan." This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identified a last transaction date of June 2, 2008. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 20 is unenforceable.


Furthermore, the Court deems failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h).


TENTATIVE RULING

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISALLOWING Claim 11 and Claim 20 in their entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-15662


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19

Also #4 & #5 EH   

Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17189


Earma Denise Young Washington and Marvin Ray


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


From: 2/7/19 Also #8

EH   


Docket 57

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Joint Debtor(s):

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Movant(s):

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17189


Earma Denise Young Washington and Marvin Ray


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/10/19, 2/7/19

Also #7 EH   

Docket 53

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Joint Debtor(s):

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-10170


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#9.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


From: 1/17/19, 1/24/19 Also #10 & #10.1

EH   


Docket 73


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-10170


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#10.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case Re Delinquency From: 12/20/18, 1/17/19, 1/24/19

Also #9 & #10.1 EH       

Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-10170


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#10.10 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case Due To Infeasibility Of Plan From: 1/10/19, Adv. Fr. 2/7/19, 1/24/19

Also #9 & #10 EH   

Docket 70


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-11403


Dony M Portillo and Raquel A Portillo


Chapter 13


#11.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 41 Motion to Disallow Claims filed by Debtor Dony M Portillo, Joint Debtor Raquel A Portillo)


EH   


Docket 43

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 2/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dony M Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel A Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee Andrea Liddick

Movant(s):

Dony M Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee

Raquel A Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee Paul Y Lee

Andrea Liddick Andrea Liddick

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-16811


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13


#12.00 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Debtor Also #13

EH   


Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-16811


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13


#13.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case Also #12

EH   


Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17883


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13


#14.00 Motion to Disallow Claim No. 6-1 filed by Bank of America N.A. Also #15 & #16

EH   


Docket 33

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND:


On September 18, 2018, Norberto & Araceli Jimenez ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On December 7, 2018, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


Bank of America, N.A. ("Creditor") has filed three claims in the instant case. The first claim was filed on October 12, 2018, and is in the amount of $18,471.67 ("Claim 5"). The second claim was filed on October 15, 2018, and is in the amount of $11,596.76 ("Claim 6"). The final claim was filed October 30, 2018, and is in the amount of

$5,385.31 ("Claim 7"). On January 10, 2019, Debtors filed claim objections to all three claims.


The Court notes that Debtors previously filed a Chapter 13 petition on December 26, 2013, and that case was dismissed on December 27, 2016. Then, Debtors filed another Chapter 13 petition on July 5, 2018, and that case was dismissed on September 13, 2018.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 5 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of September 25, 2009. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 5 is unenforceable.


Claim 6 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of September 2, 2011.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case. Nevertheless, CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 356 states: "[w]hen the commencement of an action is stayed by injunction or statutory prohibition, the time of the continuance of the injunction or prohibition is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action." This provision has the effect of excluding those time periods when Debtors had an active Chapter 13 case. The Court notes that, as of September 18, 2018, the petition date in the instant case, it appears that 3 years and 310 days had elapsed since the last transaction, after excluding those days during which the automatic stay was in effect. Therefore, the statute of limitations has not expired with regard to Claim 6.


Claim 7 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of April 2, 2013. For the reasons recited in the previous paragraph, the statute of limitations has not expired with regard to Claim 7.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of DISALLOWING Claim 5 in its entirety and DENY the motion for disallowance of Claim 6 and Claim 7.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Norberto Calalay Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Araceli Corrales Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Norberto Calalay Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Araceli Corrales Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17883


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13


#15.00 Motion to Disallow Claim No 7-1 filed by Bank of America N.A. Also #14 & #16

EH   


Docket 34

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND:


On September 18, 2018, Norberto & Araceli Jimenez ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On December 7, 2018, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


Bank of America, N.A. ("Creditor") has filed three claims in the instant case. The first claim was filed on October 12, 2018, and is in the amount of $18,471.67 ("Claim 5"). The second claim was filed on October 15, 2018, and is in the amount of $11,596.76 ("Claim 6"). The final claim was filed October 30, 2018, and is in the amount of

$5,385.31 ("Claim 7"). On January 10, 2019, Debtors filed claim objections to all three claims.


The Court notes that Debtors previously filed a Chapter 13 petition on December 26, 2013, and that case was dismissed on December 27, 2016. Then, Debtors filed another Chapter 13 petition on July 5, 2018, and that case was dismissed on September 13, 2018.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 5 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of September 25, 2009. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 5 is unenforceable.


Claim 6 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of September 2, 2011.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case. Nevertheless, CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 356 states: "[w]hen the commencement of an action is stayed by injunction or statutory prohibition, the time of the continuance of the injunction or prohibition is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action." This provision has the effect of excluding those time periods when Debtors had an active Chapter 13 case. The Court notes that, as of September 18, 2018, the petition date in the instant case, it appears that 3 years and 310 days had elapsed since the last transaction, after excluding those days during which the automatic stay was in effect. Therefore, the statute of limitations has not expired with regard to Claim 6.


Claim 7 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of April 2, 2013. For the reasons recited in the previous paragraph, the statute of limitations has not expired with regard to Claim 7.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of DISALLOWING Claim 5 in its entirety and DENY the motion for disallowance of Claim 6 and Claim 7.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Norberto Calalay Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Araceli Corrales Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Norberto Calalay Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Araceli Corrales Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17883


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13


#16.00 Motion to Disallow Claim No. 5-1 filed by Bank of America, N.A. Also #14 & #15

EH   


Docket 32

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND:


On September 18, 2018, Norberto & Araceli Jimenez ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On December 7, 2018, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


Bank of America, N.A. ("Creditor") has filed three claims in the instant case. The first claim was filed on October 12, 2018, and is in the amount of $18,471.67 ("Claim 5"). The second claim was filed on October 15, 2018, and is in the amount of $11,596.76 ("Claim 6"). The final claim was filed October 30, 2018, and is in the amount of

$5,385.31 ("Claim 7"). On January 10, 2019, Debtors filed claim objections to all three claims.


The Court notes that Debtors previously filed a Chapter 13 petition on December 26, 2013, and that case was dismissed on December 27, 2016. Then, Debtors filed another Chapter 13 petition on July 5, 2018, and that case was dismissed on September 13, 2018.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 5 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of September 25, 2009. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 5 is unenforceable.


Claim 6 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of September 2, 2011.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case. Nevertheless, CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 356 states: "[w]hen the commencement of an action is stayed by injunction or statutory prohibition, the time of the continuance of the injunction or prohibition is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action." This provision has the effect of excluding those time periods when Debtors had an active Chapter 13 case. The Court notes that, as of September 18, 2018, the petition date in the instant case, it appears that 3 years and 310 days had elapsed since the last transaction, after excluding those days during which the automatic stay was in effect. Therefore, the statute of limitations has not expired with regard to Claim 6.


Claim 7 is based on "consumer credit card" debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of April 2, 2013. For the reasons recited in the previous paragraph, the statute of limitations has not expired with regard to Claim 7.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of DISALLOWING Claim 5 in its entirety and DENY the motion for disallowance of Claim 6 and Claim 7.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Norberto Calalay Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

11:00 AM

CONT...


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Araceli Corrales Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Norberto Calalay Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Araceli Corrales Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10290


Miguel Jose Padilla, Jr. and Holly Lynn Padilla


Chapter 13


#17.00 Motion for Setting Property Value re 2014 Ram 1500 Tradesman Pickup Also #18

EH   


Docket 17

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND


On January 14, 2019, Miguel & Holly Padilla ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate are a 2015 Dodge Journey (the "Dodge") and a 2014 Ram 1500 (the "Ram"). Santander Consumer USA Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital ("Creditor") holds a security interest in both the Dodge and the Ram. On January 29, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $29,088.26, identifying $19,225 as secured by the Ram. On January 31, 2019, Creditor filed an additional proof of claim in the amount of $20,147.58, identifying $13,025 as secured by the Dodge.


On February 6, 2019, Debtors filed motions to value regarding both the Dodge and the Ram. Debtors assert that the Dodge should be valued at $11,219 and that the Ram should be valued at $17,476.


DISCUSSION

11:00 AM

CONT...


Miguel Jose Padilla, Jr. and Holly Lynn Padilla


Chapter 13

One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party values of the Dodge and the Ram. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Miguel Jose Padilla, Jr. and Holly Lynn Padilla

Party Information


Chapter 13

Miguel Jose Padilla Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Holly Lynn Padilla Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Miguel Jose Padilla Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

Holly Lynn Padilla Represented By Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10290


Miguel Jose Padilla, Jr. and Holly Lynn Padilla


Chapter 13


#18.00 Motion for Setting Property Value re 2015 Dodge Journey Also #17

EH   


Docket 16

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND


On January 14, 2019, Miguel & Holly Padilla ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate are a 2015 Dodge Journey (the "Dodge") and a 2014 Ram 1500 (the "Ram"). Santander Consumer USA Inc. d/b/a Chrysler Capital ("Creditor") holds a security interest in both the Dodge and the Ram. On January 29, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $29,088.26, identifying $19,225 as secured by the Ram. On January 31, 2019, Creditor filed an additional proof of claim in the amount of $20,147.58, identifying $13,025 as secured by the Dodge.


On February 6, 2019, Debtors filed motions to value regarding both the Dodge and the Ram. Debtors assert that the Dodge should be valued at $11,219 and that the Ram should be valued at $17,476.


DISCUSSION

11:00 AM

CONT...


Miguel Jose Padilla, Jr. and Holly Lynn Padilla


Chapter 13

One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party values of the Dodge and the Ram. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Miguel Jose Padilla, Jr. and Holly Lynn Padilla

Party Information


Chapter 13

Miguel Jose Padilla Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Holly Lynn Padilla Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Miguel Jose Padilla Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

Holly Lynn Padilla Represented By Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19414


Paul Edward Young, Jr.


Chapter 13


#19.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/10/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Paul Edward Young Jr. Represented By Stephen L Burton

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19628


Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


Chapter 13


#20.00 CONT Motion for Order Determining Value of Collateral From: 1/31/19

Also #21 & #22 EH   

Docket 26

Tentative Ruling:

1/31/2019

BACKGROUND

On November 13, 2018, Reynaldo Perez & Gatziry Zeledon ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2008 Lincoln Navigator (the "Property"). Wells Fargo Dealer Services ("Creditor") has a security interest in the Property. On December 27, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to determine the value of the property. Debtor requests that the Property be valued at $8,950, leaving the balance of the claim, $7,699, unsecured. On January 22, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $15,384.63, identifying $13,375 as secured by the Property.

DISCUSSION

One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See

11:00 AM

CONT...

Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon

Chapter 13

In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that retail value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report indicating that the private party value of the Property is $8,950. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


Tentative Ruling:


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


Chapter 13

Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19628


Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


Chapter 13


#21.00 Motion For Order Determining Value Of Collateral Also #20 & #22

EH   


Docket 39

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

2/5/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19628


Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


Chapter 13


#22.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/17/19, 1/24/19, 1/31/19

Also #20 & #21 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19939


Eddie Rolison


Chapter 13


#23.00 Motion to Avoid Lien Property Lien with Kingsmead Asset Holding Trust re

14249 Calle Contesa Victorville, CA 92392


Also #24 & #25 EH   

Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19


The Court, having reviewed the motion, good cause appearing, and noting the lack of opposition, which the Court deems consent pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h), hereby GRANTS the motion, bifurcating the claim into a secured claim in the amount of $6,453.70 and an unsecured claim in the amount of $45,728.75.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eddie Rolison Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Eddie Rolison Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19939


Eddie Rolison


Chapter 13


#24.00 Motion to Avoid Lien Property Lien with Kingsmead Asset Holding Trust re

14256 Calle Contesa Victorville, CA 92392


Also #23 & #25 EH   

Docket 29


Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19


The Court, having reviewed the motion, good cause appearing, and noting the lack of opposition, which the Court deems consent pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h), hereby GRANTS the motion, bifurcating the claim into a secured claim in the amount of $19,919.58 and an unsecured claim in the amount of $33,318.36.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eddie Rolison Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Eddie Rolison Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19939


Eddie Rolison


Chapter 13


#25.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

Also #23 & #24 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eddie Rolison Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19950


Cary Michael Clark and Trisha Lynn Clark


Chapter 13


#26.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: HEARD ON 1/31/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cary Michael Clark Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Trisha Lynn Clark Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19956


Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff


Chapter 13


#27.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: HEARD ON 1/31/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Herman A. Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Monica Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19965


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13


#28.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: HEARD ON 1/31/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19969


Daniel Porche and Leta Lorraine Porche


Chapter 13


#29.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: HEARD ON 1/31/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Porche Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Leta Lorraine Porche Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20002


Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


Chapter 13


#30.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/7/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20070


Alexander J Perfinowicz and Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz


Chapter 13


#31.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alexander J Perfinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

Joint Debtor(s):

Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20153


Miguel Angel Lopez


Chapter 13


#32.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Miguel Angel Lopez Represented By Barry E Borowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20200


Denise Cherie Darden


Chapter 13


#33.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 2/7/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Denise Cherie Darden Represented By Julie Philippi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20238


Efrain Padron


Chapter 13


#34.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20296


Daniel Lee Crump


Chapter 13


#35.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20308


Joseph Liebgott, IV and Robby Jean Harrison


Chapter 13


#36.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 2/7/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph Liebgott IV Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Robby Jean Harrison Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20334


Yvonne Irene Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 12/28/18

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Yvonne Irene Rodriguez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20369


Harry Neil Findor


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Harry Neil Findor Represented By Michael Avanesian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20402


Frank T. Moore


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Frank T. Moore Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20410


Pamela M Bradford


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Pamela M Bradford Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20412


Clemente Castro Reyes


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Clemente Castro Reyes Represented By Andrew Moher

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20413


Jose Ramon Castaneda


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Ramon Castaneda Represented By Andrew Moher

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20421


Jesse Armando Holguin


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesse Armando Holguin Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20429


Jerry Arnold La Cues


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jerry Arnold La Cues Represented By Dana J Oliver

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20436


Shelley Elizabeth Gastelo


Chapter 13


#45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Shelley Elizabeth Gastelo Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20463


Eric R. Wells Jr


Chapter 13


#46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eric R. Wells Jr Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20485


Stephanie Patrice Robinson


Chapter 13


#47.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephanie Patrice Robinson Represented By

W. Derek May

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20513


Eddie Fitz


Chapter 13


#48.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eddie Fitz Represented By

Payom Ilkanipour

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20535


Peter W Fournier and Leslie Fournier


Chapter 13


#49.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Peter W Fournier Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Joint Debtor(s):

Leslie Fournier Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20547


Tawnie L Vanderham


Chapter 13


#50.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tawnie L Vanderham Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20552


Theresa Jones


Chapter 13


#51.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Theresa Jones Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20569


Dolores Thompson Boone


Chapter 13


#52.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Dolores Thompson Boone Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20590


Scott B Alexander


Chapter 13


#53.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Scott B Alexander Represented By William E Windham

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20611


Tonnette Bell


Chapter 13


#54.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tonnette Bell Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20619


Deverick Brian Jackson


Chapter 13


#55.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Deverick Brian Jackson Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20635


Luis Antonio Gaeta


Chapter 13


#56.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luis Antonio Gaeta Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20639


Robert A Price


Chapter 13


#57.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Robert A Price Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20640


Mason Gilbert


Chapter 13


#58.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mason Gilbert Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20644


Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley


Chapter 13


#59.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Terry E Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Janell Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20653


Maria M. Gallegos


Chapter 13


#60.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maria M. Gallegos Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20707


Ofelia Romero


Chapter 13


#61.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ofelia Romero Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod (MH) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18622


Jackie May Zapata


Chapter 13


#62.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/29/18, 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: HEARD ON 1/31/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jackie May Zapata Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19196


Sheila Rosales Manabat


Chapter 13


#63.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/10/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sheila Rosales Manabat Represented By John A Varley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19233


Yair Salvador Carranza Contreras


Chapter 13


#64.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/10/19, 1/31/19

EH    


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: HEARD ON 1/31/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Yair Salvador Carranza Contreras Represented By

Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10445


Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


Chapter 13


#65.00 Motion for Setting Property Value Collateral Held by Northrop Grumman Federal Credit Union


EH   


Docket 12

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND


On January 18, 2019, Abidan & Cindy Aceves ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2006 Chevrolet Silverado (the "Property"). Northrop Grumman Federal Credit Union ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property. On January 28, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $16,229.83, identifying $10,507 as secured by the Property.


On January 31, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to value the Property. Debtors assert that the Property should be valued at $7,856.


DISCUSSION



One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).

11:00 AM

CONT...


Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


Chapter 13


Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party values of the Dodge and the Ram. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Abidan Aceves Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


Rabin J Pournazarian


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Cindy Aceves Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Movant(s):

Abidan Aceves Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Cindy Aceves Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-16811


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


#66.00 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff Also #67

EH   


Docket 37


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler Todd L Turoci

Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Donna Roberto Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Donna Roberto


Todd L Turoci


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-16811


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


#67.00 Motion to Continue Hearing On (related documents 5 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding)


Also #66 EH   

Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler Todd L Turoci

Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

11:00 AM

CONT...


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13

Plaintiff(s):

Donna Roberto Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-13931


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13


#68.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

Docket 118


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-23150


Vivian Munson


Chapter 13


#69.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/23/18, 8/23/18, 10/25/18, 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 218


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vivian Munson Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-12176


Bonnie Jean Conant


Chapter 13


#70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

Docket 98


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bonnie Jean Conant Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-13811


Christopher Lee Sumners


Chapter 13


#71.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/7/19

EH   


Docket 97


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher Lee Sumners Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-17743


Maria C. Ignacio


Chapter 13


#72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maria C. Ignacio Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-19804


Juan M Madueno Carrizoza


Chapter 13


#73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

Docket 76


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juan M Madueno Carrizoza Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-12453


Michael Joseph Fodor


Chapter 13


#74.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Joseph Fodor Represented By Michael D Franco

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-16909


Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


Chapter 13


#75.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 247


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Edward Edmund Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Georgia Parrilla Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18372


Gene Ashley Heisser, Jr.


Chapter 13


#76.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 110

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gene Ashley Heisser Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18970


Pedro Canchola and Esther Valle Canchola


Chapter 13


#77.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 62

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pedro Canchola Represented By Leonard Pena

Joint Debtor(s):

Esther Valle Canchola Represented By Leonard Pena

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-19890


Rick Gaeta Carreon


Chapter 13


#78.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 110

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rick Gaeta Carreon Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20163


Sandra M. Hankins


Chapter 13


#79.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 71


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sandra M. Hankins Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14549


Denice Laree Grimes and Derrick Gregory Grimes


Chapter 13


#80.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/8/18, 12/20/18, 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Denice Laree Grimes Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Joint Debtor(s):

Derrick Gregory Grimes Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:13-18557


Michael Anthony Clay and Brenda Ann Clay


Chapter 13


#81.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 285


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Anthony Clay Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Brenda Ann Clay Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14619


Candice Maria Borrego


Chapter 13


#82.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 81

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Candice Maria Borrego Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14650


Brian Eugene Anderson and Gina Marie Anderson


Chapter 13


#83.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Brian Eugene Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Gina Marie Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14777


Juanita Francis Casey


Chapter 13


#84.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 56

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Juanita Francis Casey Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15660


Guillermina Perez


Chapter 13


#85.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case due to Infeasibility of plan From: 1/31/19

EH   


Docket 37

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Guillermina Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-18366


Kisha Eugena Stegall-Hill


Chapter 13


#86.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 72


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Kisha Eugena Stegall-Hill Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-20388


Oracio Rosales Hernandez


Chapter 13


#87.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 67


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oracio Rosales Hernandez Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16178


Eriberto A. Sandoval


Chapter 13


#88.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/17/19, 1/24/19, 2/7/19

EH       


Docket 32

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eriberto A. Sandoval Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10940


Ruben L Benitez and Christina M Benitez


Chapter 13


#89.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ruben L Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Christina M Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14761


Reginald D. Caldwell


Chapter 13


#90.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19, 2/7/19

EH   


Docket 35

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Reginald D. Caldwell Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14770


Lamar Ramon Benjamin


Chapter 13


#91.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lamar Ramon Benjamin Represented By

Ethan Kiwhan Chin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15051


Rueben Anthony Castro and Adrian Marie Castro


Chapter 7


#92.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

Docket 33

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 2/27/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rueben Anthony Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Adrian Marie Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15541


Alejandro Guillen and Karla Guillen


Chapter 13


#93.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alejandro Guillen Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Joint Debtor(s):

Karla Guillen Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11167


Victor Thomas Lawton


Chapter 13


#94.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-22294


Jonathan William Nicastro


Chapter 13


#95.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 152

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jonathan William Nicastro Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-11652


Janel M Faulks


Chapter 13


#96.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 62

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Janel M Faulks Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-18082


Joseph John Vargas and Lydia Vargas


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 21341 Shakespeare Court, Moreno, Valley, California 92557


MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 2/5/19 EH   

Docket 104


Tentative Ruling:

02/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to update Court regarding the status of APO negotiations, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph John Vargas Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Lydia Vargas Represented By

Dana Travis

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Sean C Ferry

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Joseph John Vargas and Lydia Vargas


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-15987


Frank Heredia and Virginia Heredia


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1943 Rainbow Ridge, Corona, California 92882


MOVANT: OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from § 1301 co-debtor stay. GRANT relief requested under ¶ 3. GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for APO if not granted.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Heredia Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Joint Debtor(s):

Virginia Heredia Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Movant(s):

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Kelsey X Luu

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Frank Heredia and Virginia Heredia


Sean C Ferry


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-16134


Gerardo Garibay


Chapter 13


#3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 765 Attenborough Way, San Jacinto, CA 92583


MOVANT: U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Withdrawn


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT relief requested pursuant to ¶3 of the prayer for relief.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gerardo Garibay Represented By Alberto Carranza

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank Trust National Represented By Michelle R Ghidotti Kristin A Zilberstein

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

CONT...


Gerardo Garibay


Chapter 13

10:00 AM

6:18-10248


Vaughn Stevens


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 79706 Parkway Esplanade South, La Quinta, CA 92253


MOVANT: CHARLES W. MORGAN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST


EH       


Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes Reply: Yes


The Debtor opposes the Motion on the grounds that (1) the Motion does not provide evidence of post-petition arrears and does not provide evidence of attorney fees and costs; (2) the Debtor has equity in the Property; and (3) the attorneys fees and costs are unreasonable.


In reply, the Movant asserts that (1) the declaration of the James Morgan as custodian records is evidence of the arrears; (2) § 362(d)(2) and the related issue of equity in the Property are not a basis for relief from stay by the Movant; and (3) Movant has provided in the Reply a breakdown of the costs incurred in connection with the Debtor’s failure to make postpetition payments.

Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court agrees with the authorities and arguments of Movant. The postpetition arrears are sufficiently evidenced in the Motion and the failure to make those postpetition payments are cause for lifting of the stay under § 362(d)(1). The Debtor has failed to dispute the alleged failure to make postpetition payments and in fact, Debtor concedes he is in default. The issue regarding whether costs incurred by Movant are reasonable is not actually before this Court. A finding that the postpetition payments were not made suffices to grant the Motion.


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion, including the

10:00 AM

CONT...


Vaughn Stevens


Chapter 13

request for relief under ¶7 of the prayer for relief; and DENY the Motion only as to ¶ 13 which is denied as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vaughn Stevens Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

Movant(s):

Charles W. Morgan Revocable Represented By Caroline Djang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-11770


Raymond Burrola and Estela Burrola


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Nissan Altima, VIN: 1N4AL3AP6DN489947


MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC


EH   


Docket 58


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Raymond Burrola Represented By Elena Steers

Joint Debtor(s):

Estela Burrola Represented By Elena Steers

Movant(s):

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Raymond Burrola and Estela Burrola


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-12099


James David Wilson, IV and Kerri Ann Wilson


Chapter 13


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 18804 Hinton Street, Hesperia, California, 92345-6970


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 34


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


The Debtor asserts more payments were made than were accounted for by the Movant. Certainly, a comparison of the Debtor’s Supplement, the Movant’s Declaration and Exhibit 4 indicate that at least one $2,300 payment was made after the Movant received the $2,369.11 payment in October. Much of the confusion is caused by the irregularity of the date the payments are sent out by the Debtors. The due date is the 18th of each month. However, payments are sent by the Debtors alternately at the beginning, middle and end of months. Nevertheless, based on the Debtor’s evidence it appears that when the Motion was filed on February 6, 2019, Debtors would only have been late on their January payment.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James David Wilson IV Represented By Dina Farhat

Joint Debtor(s):

Kerri Ann Wilson Represented By Dina Farhat

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


James David Wilson, IV and Kerri Ann Wilson


Chapter 13

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Christina J O

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-13715


Jennifer Elaine Sackett


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 7538 Apache Trail, Yucca Valley, CA 92284


MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK


EH   


Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


The Debtor’s opposition offers evidence that the Debtor fell behind on her mortgage payments due to costs incurred as a result of a legal custody dispute. Debtor asserts that the dispute has now been resolved. Debtor further asserts that she expects a tax refund, additional income from a part time job, and increased child support payments which will enable her to come current within 90 days. While stay relief is warranted, the Court is inclined to enter an APO to permit the Debtor an opportunity to cure the post-petition arrears and to protect Movant from the expense of having to file additional motions for relief from stay. Parties to update the Court on APO discussions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jennifer Elaine Sackett Represented By Brian C Andrews

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Jennifer Elaine Sackett


Chapter 13

MidFirst Bank Represented By Gilbert R Yabes Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14053


Wallace Stanton Miles


Chapter 13


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2006 Ford F150, VIN: 1FTRX12W76KB27500


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.


EH   


Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY APO request as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Wallace Stanton Miles Represented By

Stuart G Steingraber

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-15192


Everett T Cain


Chapter 13


#9.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1110 West Menlo Avenue, Hemet, CA-92543


MOVANT: CITIBANK N.A.


From: 2/5/19 EH   

Docket 34


Tentative Ruling:

02/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶3 of prayer for relief and DENY request for APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Everett T Cain Represented By April E Roberts

Movant(s):

Citibank, N.A. Represented By Sean C Ferry

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17677


Chadwick Otieno Ochieng and Christine Achieng Matoka


Chapter 13


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4123 Pearl Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530


MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK


EH   


Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


Debtor has indicated an intent to cure arrears by the hearing date. Parties to confirm cure.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Chadwick Otieno Ochieng Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Christine Achieng Matoka Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

MidFirst Bank, its assignees and/or Represented By

Nancy L Lee

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Chadwick Otieno Ochieng and Christine Achieng Matoka


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19264


Lupita Meza Perez


Chapter 7


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15715 Pine Bluff Court, Adelanto, CA 92301


MOVANT: GATEWAY MORTGAGE GROUP, LLC


EH   


Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1) for cause. There is insufficient adequate protection for the Movant under In re Mellor, 734 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1984). DENY relief under § 362(d)(2) because there is equity in the Property. GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay and GRANT the requests under ¶¶ 3 and 12 of the prayer for relief.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Lupita Meza Perez Pro Se

Movant(s):

Gateway Mortgage Group, LLC Represented By Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20285


Nicole R. Vinhateiro


Chapter 7


#12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Buick Verano, VIN: 1G4PP5SK1E4138339


MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.


EH   


Docket 18


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nicole R. Vinhateiro Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Movant(s):

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By

Mandy D Youngblood Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20404


Maria De Lourdes Gonzalez


Chapter 7


#13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 MINI Hardtop 4 Door Cooper S Hatchback 4D


MOVANT: BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA


EH   


Docket 17


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maria De Lourdes Gonzalez Represented By Miguel A Valente

Movant(s):

BMW Bank of North America Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20504


Brian K Listoe and Elsa Z Listoe


Chapter 7


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2008 Crownline 200 Ls Boat (JTC71075H708; 2008 Mercruiser engine (1A065450); 2008 Road Runner trailer (1U4RR20288T0771732)


MOVANT: SYSTEMS & SERVICES TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


EH   


Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Brian K Listoe Represented By William J Howell

Joint Debtor(s):

Elsa Z Listoe Represented By

William J Howell

Movant(s):

Systems & Services Technologies, Represented By

Austin P Nagel

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10057


Alvaro Xavier Fierro


Chapter 7


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota Sienna


MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alvaro Xavier Fierro Pro Se

Movant(s):

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Represented By

Austin P Nagel

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10180


Elizabeth T Baker


Chapter 7


#16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Kia Rio, VIN: KNADM4A34G6676459


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


EH   


Docket 7


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under §§ 362(d)(1) and (d)(2). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elizabeth T Baker Represented By Nancy Korompis

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10990


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13


#17.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 35816 Country Ridge Road, Yucaipa, CA 92399 and as to All other Creditors.


MOVANT: DAVID AND MARY CELINE SANDOVAL


EH   


Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


As a threshold matter, the Debtors indicated that the Motion was served on regular notice. It was not. The Motion was filed on February 13, 2019. Regular notice on a Motion filed on that date would not have run until March 6, 2019. The opposition was then filed on February 25, 2019, by Secured Creditor Wilmington Trust ("Creditor").


Creditor asserts that the Debtors’ prior case was dismissed due to the Debtors’ inability to perform as to the terms of the confirmed plan. The dismissal was precipitated by Wilmington Trust’s notification to the Trustee that the Debtors were not current on their post-petition payments which eventually formed the basis for the dismissal of the prior case.


The presumption that the case was not filed in good faith arises due to the failure to perform the terms of the confirmed plan in their prior case. To overcome the presumption, the Debtors assert they now have sufficient income to fund a feasible plan because (1) Debtor Wife has experienced an increase in income of $700 per month, (2) Debtor Wife’s parents are contributing $1,200 per month to the Debtors;

(3) Debtors are no longer supporting their children because they have now graduated from college. The Motion is supported only by the declaration of the Debtor.

10:00 AM

CONT...


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13


Creditor in its opposition asserts that the statements regarding the Debtors’ family contributions are unsupported by any evidence and the Court agrees. Section 362(c)(3) explicitly requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the case was not filed in good faith. In reply, the Debtors have provided a declaration from the Debtors’ family members asserting that they will contribute $1,200 monthly for 60 months towards the Debtors’ plan. The Declaration further indicates that the Robert and Ann Sroufe are currently residing with the Debtors.


Based on the supplemental evidence, the Court is inclined to find that the Debtors have sufficiently improved their financial condition to warrant a finding that by clear and convincing evidence the presumption under § 362(c)(3) has been overcome.

However, the Court believes a stay-current APO is warranted under the circumstances.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Joint Debtor(s):

Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Movant(s):

David Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11121


David Vogel


Chapter 13


#18.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 3296 El Nido Ave., Perris, CA 92571


MOVANT: DAVID VOGEL


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

The prior case was dismissed at the confirmation hearing. The Trustee indicated on the record that the case should be dismissed based on the following: (1) No funds were tendered, (2) the Debtor did not appear at the 341(a) Meeting of Creditors, (3) no declaration regarding postpetition mortgage payments was filed, and (4) Debtor did not provide Trustee with addresses for conduit payments. The Trustee requested a straight dismissal.


To address the dismissal of the prior case, Debtor’s motion asserts that he did not have sufficient funds to make both the initial plan payment and the postpetition mortgage payment at the same time. Debtor asserts in his declaration that this time around he has sufficient funds on hand to make the initial required payments.


The Debtor’s declaration is consistent with the record of the dismissal at the confirmation hearing. Here, the presumption that the case was not filed in good faith does not arise and Debtor has provided sufficient evidence to warrant continuance of the stay.


Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion continuing the automatic stay as to AmeriHome Morgtage only as it was the only creditor served.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

10:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


David Vogel


Chapter 13

David Vogel Represented By

Neil R Hedtke

Movant(s):

David Vogel Represented By

Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-19993


B & B Family, Incorporated


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01116 Forte v. B & B Family, Incorporated


#19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01116. Complaint by Patricia Forte against B & B Family, Incorporated


From: 7/24/18, 7/31/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 11/27/18, 1/29/19


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/30/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

Defendant(s):

B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Patricia Forte Represented By

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

2:00 PM

6:16-19993


B & B Family, Incorporated


Chapter 11


#20.00 CONT Joint Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy Which Includes Reorganized Debtor Selling Its Business


From: 1/29/19 Also #21

EH   


Docket 211

*** VACATED *** REASON: COURT GRANTED PER RECORD AT HEARING ON 2/13/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

Movant(s):

Patricia Forte Represented By

D Edward Hays

2:00 PM

6:16-19993


B & B Family, Incorporated


Chapter 11


#21.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 12/13/16, 3/7/17, 5/30/17, 7/25/17, 9/26/17, 10/31/17, 11/7/17, 5/15/18, 8/21/18, 1/15/19


Also #20 EH   

Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

2:00 PM

6:18-10155


Jose De Jesus Hernandez


Chapter 11


#22.00 CONT Motion for approval of the adequecy of the chapter 11 disclosure statement


From: 1/29/19 Also #23

EH   


Docket 111


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

Eric Bensamochan

Movant(s):

Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan

2:00 PM

6:18-10155


Jose De Jesus Hernandez


Chapter 11


#23.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 1/29/19 Also #22

EH   


Docket 96


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

Eric Bensamochan

2:00 PM

6:18-20003


LC Stahl LLC


Chapter 11


#24.00 CONT Motion for Relief from Stay Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. Section 362 (with supporting declarations) (Real Property)


MOVANT: LOAN FUNDER LLC, SERIES 1829


From: 2/26/19 Also #25

EH   


Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LC Stahl LLC Represented By

Stuart J Wald

Movant(s):

Loan Funder LLC, Series 1829 Represented By Jeffrey N Brown

2:00 PM

6:18-20003


LC Stahl LLC


Chapter 11


#25.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 1/8/19, 2/26/19 Also #24

EH       


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LC Stahl LLC Represented By

Stuart J Wald

2:00 PM

6:18-12807


G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


Chapter 11


#26.00 Motion to Allow Claim 9,10,11 Approve Temporary Allowance Under FRBP 3018(a)


Also #27 & #28 EH   

Docket 152

Tentative Ruling:

MARCH 5, 2019


BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2018, G Hurtado Construction, Inc. ("Debtor") filed its petition for chapter 11 relief. The bankruptcy was precipitated by a wage and hour lawsuit brought by two and possibly more former employees. Catana and Faustino v. G Hurtado Construction, Inc. On May 9, 2018, the Debtor issued a Notice of Bar Date indicating that the Court set a deadline of July 13, 2018 ("Bar Date"), for creditors to file proofs of claims against the Debtor’s estate.

On July 16, 2018, the following claims were filed: Claim #9 by Donahoo & Associates, PC in the amount of $134,475.02, Claim #10 by Juan Catano in the amount of $230,081.64, Claim #11 by Faustino Magana in the amount of $101,240.04 (collectively, "Litigation Claimants")

On August 29, 2018, the Litigation Claimants filed a motion to allow their late-filed claims. On October 10, 2018, the Court granted the motion and entered its order allowing Claims 9, 10, and 11 (the "Disputed Claims"). Following the allowance of the Disputed Claims, the Debtor filed an amended disclosure statement and plan to provide for treatment of the Disputed Claims on October 9, 2018.

Following comments from the Court regarding the Debtor’s First Amended Disclosure Statement, the Debtor filed the Second Amended Disclosure Statement and Plan on November 16, 2018. On November 27, 2018, the Litigation Claimants filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay ("RFS Motion") seeking to have the Disputed Claims determined via an arbitration proceeding which had been commenced prepetition. On December 3, 2018, the Debtor filed a complaint against the Litigation Claimants objecting to their claims (the "Objection"). On December 18, 2018, a hearing was held at which the Court approved the Debtor’s Second Amended DS and granted in part and denied in part the RFS Motion. On January 2, 2019, the

2:00 PM

CONT...


G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


Chapter 11

Court entered its Order approving the Second Amended DS and providing deadlines for balloting and objections (the "Order"). The Order required that objections to the plan be filed no later than February 19, 2019, and that completed ballots were due returned by January 22, 2019. On January 3, 2019, the Litigation Claimants and Debtor stipulated to holding the Objection proceeding in abeyance pending the conclusion of the arbitration. The Court entered its order approving the stipulation on February 4, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the Debtor filed its Brief in Support of Confirmation (the "Brief"). The Brief indicated, in pertinent part, that Class 6 members, the Class designated for treatment of the Litigation Claimants’ Disputed Claims were not eligible to vote under § 1126 based on the filing of the Objection.

On February 12, 2019, a Motion to Temporarily Allow the Disputed Claims under FRBP 3018(a) followed (the "Motion"). Opposition to the Motion was filed on February 19, 2019 ("Opposition"), and a reply to the Opposition was filed on February 26, 2019 ("Reply").


DISCUSSION


Section 1126(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that only holders of allowed claims or interests may vote to accept or reject a plan. Section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. A creditor whose claim is objected to "is therefore disenfranchised from voting on the plan unless the objection is adjudicated prior to plan voting, or a mechanism, such as temporary allowance, is provided for." In re Stone Hedge Props.

  1. Phoenix Capital Corp. (In re Stone Hedge Props.), 191 B.R. 59, 63 (Bankr.M.D.Pa.1995). The mechanism for temporary allowance is provided by Bankruptcy Rule 3018. The policy behind temporary allowance is to prevent possible abuse by plan proponents who might ensure acceptance of a plan by filing last minute objections to the claims of dissenting creditors. In re Armstrong, 294 B.R. 344 (10th Cir.BAP2003), aff'd 97 Fed. Appx. 285 (10th Cir.2004). The ultimate determination of whether to temporarily allow a claim for voting purposes is within the Court's sound discretion. Id.; In re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc., 197 B.R. 771, 775 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996). Like estimation under section 502, neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Bankruptcy Rules provide guidance on a methodology to be used but commend the determination to the court's discretion. In re Pac. Sunwear of California, Inc., 2016 WL 4250681, at *3 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 8, 2016) (internal citations omitted). Courts tend to look at the debtor's schedules, the proof of claim, and the objection filed to the proof of claim. Id. At least one court has suggested that a determination under Rule 3018 "should ensure that the voting power is commensurate with the creditor's economic interests in the case." Id.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    As a threshold matter, FRBP 3018 is silent regarding the appropriate deadline for parties to bring a motion to temporarily allow a claim for purposes of voting. In In re M. Long Arabians, the trial court had indicated that since a creditor did not seek temporary allowance of its claim, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3018(a)(2), prior to the confirmation hearing, that creditor’s claim was deemed not allowed under Section 502(a). 103 B.R. 211, 214 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1989). On appeal, the BAP affirmed the trial court’s finding and stated that the creditor could not have voted on the Plan unless it sought a timely allowance of its claims under Bankruptcy Rule 3018. Id. at 215 (internal citations omitted). Similarly, in Jacksonville Airport, Inc. v. Michkeldel, Inc., the Fourth Circuit considered the issue of timing where a motion for temporary allowance of a claim was not filed until after the deadline for voting on the plan. 434 F.3d 729, 732 (4th Cir. 2006). In that case, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s order denying a motion to reconsider the confirmation order finding that the creditor did not have a right to vote on the debtor’s plan, and implicitly finding that the motion for temporary allowance must be filed prior to the deadline for voting. See id.


    For their part, the Litigation Claimants have cited to cases outside the Ninth Circuit in which trial court judges focused heavily on the equities facing the creditors seeking temporary allowance rather than any strict timelines. Debtor, however, responds that Stone Hedge Properties v. Phoenix Capital Corp. (In re Stone Hedge Properties), 191 B.R. 59 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1995) ("Stone Hedge") and In re Goldstein, 114 BR 430, 434 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1990) both dealt with situations where the creditors were being ambushed by the debtors.


    Here, the Court is simply not persuaded that the Litigation Claimants’ position is defensible. As an aside, the Court was indulgent when the Litigations Claimants filed their Disputed Claims after the bar date and, in that situation, found sufficient cause existed to excuse the failure to timely file the claims. However, where here, the Litigation Claimants have actively participated in objecting to their treatment by the Debtor from the inception of the case and where they filed oppositions to Debtor’s proposed disclosure statements and a RFS Motion, there is no apparent basis to excuse the Litigation Claimants from their responsibility to have apprised themselves of their own duties with respect to voting – a vote that they undoubtedly always intended to exercise. Further, unlike the cases cited by the Litigation Claimants, the Objection was filed in early December and it was the Litigations Claimants’ responsibility to apprise themselves of the consequences engendered by the filing of the Objection. Having considered the equities presented by both sides and the legal authorities, the Court is persuaded that (1) absent evidence that a debtor’s objection was filed so close in time to the confirmation hearing such that the effect would have been to ambush the creditor, a motion to temporarily allow a claim must be filed and heard prior to the deadline to cast a vote; and (2) here, the record indicates that the

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    creditor was not ambushed.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to DENY the Motion for temporary allowance.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

    Movant(s):

    Donahoo & Associates, PC Represented By Richard E Donahoo

    Faustino Magana Represented By Richard E Donahoo

    Juan Catano Represented By

    Richard E Donahoo

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12807


    G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


    Chapter 11


    #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan


    Also #26 & #28 EH   

    Docket 105


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12807


    G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


    Chapter 11


    #28.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 5/8/18, 8/21/18, 9/11/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/6/18, 12/18/18


    Also #26 & #27 EH   

    Docket 18


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #29.00 CONT Application to Employ Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP as General Bankruptcy Counsel


    From: 11/27/18, 12/18/18, 1/29/19 Also #30 & #31

    EH   


    Docket 45

    Tentative Ruling:

    11/27/2018

    DISCUSSION


    "[I]t is clear that the bankruptcy court has broad discretion over the appointment of professionals." In re Seeburg Prods. Corp., 215 B.R. 175, 178 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997). A violation of the rules of professional responsibility can be sufficient reason to disqualify a proposed counsel from being employed in a case. See, e.g.. In re Universal Bldg. Prods., 486 B.R. 650, 661 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (collecting cases).


    "An attorney retained by the trustee, or debtor in possession, who assists with the collection of the assets of the estate, must abide by the highest professional standards." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. 830, 840 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1991) "Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is the standard of behavior." Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545, 546 (N.Y. 1928).


    "[A] debtor who proposes a sale of all of its assets . . . must fully disclose to the court

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11

    and creditors the relationship between the buyer and seller, as well as the circumstances under which the negotiations have taken place, any marketing efforts, and the factual basis upon which the debtor determined that the price was reasonable." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. at 842. In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., continued on to state:


    The Court finds from the evidence before it that Ms. Bernstein either (1) knew of the collusive and undisclosed relationships in this case and knowingly participated in misleading the Court and creditors; or (2) didn’t know of the collusive and undisclosed relationships in this case, and is therefore wholly incompetent because she insisted on remaining ignorant of the facts and law applicable to her case notwithstanding the numerous indicia of questionable conduct along the way. Whether Ms. Bernstein’s acts were wrongful, willfully incompetent or grossly negligent is not important to the determination here.

    Under either case, the Court concludes her fees must be denied in their entirely [sic], she should not be permitted to represent debtors in possession before any bankruptcy court, and her conduct in this case must be referred to the State Bar of California for disciplinary proceedings.


    Id. at 847.


    In the instant case, it appears Applicant failed to act with honesty and candor in relation to the sale of substantially all of the estate’s assets. Specifically, notwithstanding Applicant’s duty to the Court, Applicant failed to disclose a material side deal which was pertinent to the terms of the sale under review, and Applicant even stated at the hearing it was not Applicant’s job to make such disclosure.

    Applicant’s conduct in this case has fallen short of complying with the rules of professional conduct and has obstructed the Court’s review of the primary matter in this case, the sale of substantially all of Debtor’s assets. Given that such conduct is clearly adequate to disallow Applicant’s fees in their entirety, the Court is inclined to find that authorizing the employment of Applicant would be a frivolous exercise.


    TENTATIVE RULING

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    The Court is inclined to DISALLOW the application.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    Movant(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #30.00 CONT Disclosure Statement for Chapter 11 Liquidating Plan Proposed by the Debtor


    From: 12/18/18, 1/29/19 Also #29 & #31

    EH   


    Docket 124


    Tentative Ruling:

    03/05/2019


    Contingent on the final resolution of the issues related to Counsel for Debtor's Employment Application, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Disclosure Statement (FADS), service was proper, and no objections to the FADS were filed. The Court finds that the FADS contains adequate information as required under 11 U.S.C.

    § 1125.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #31.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 11/6/18, 12/18/18, 1/29/19 Also #29 & #30

    EH   


    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:15-14230


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01214 Pringle v. Histen, APC et al


    #1.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01214. Complaint by John Pringle against Harry J Histen, APC, Harry J Histen, III. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Complaint for: (1) Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11

    U.S.C. § 544(b) and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3439.04(a)(2), 3439.05; (2) Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B); (3) Recovery of Avoided Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550; and (4) Disallowance of Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Goe, Robert)


    From: 1/9/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/8/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Party Information

    Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

    Defendant(s):

    Harry J Histen, APC Pro Se

    Harry J Histen, III Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    John Pringle Represented By

    Robert P Goe

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

    2:00 PM

    6:18-17663


    Stephen Richard Morales


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01242 Forniss et al v. Morales et al


    #2.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01242. Complaint by Steven John Forniss against Stephan Richard Morales, Diane Forniss Morales, Todd Turoci. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Firman, Fritz)


    EH   


    Docket 1

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/13/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Party Information

    Stephen Richard Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Defendant(s):

    Stephan Richard Morales Pro Se

    Diane Forniss Morales Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Diane Forniss Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Plaintiff(s):

    Stephen Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

    Alfonso Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20741


    Frank Stephan Trautmann and Jirapa Trautmann


    Chapter 7


    #1.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Alaska USA Federal Credit Union re 2015 Jeep Cherokee


    EH   


    Docket 17


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Frank Stephan Trautmann Represented By Daniel King

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Jirapa Trautmann Represented By Daniel King

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20627


    Joseph Albert Stamas, Jr. and Markita Marie Stamas


    Chapter 7


    #2.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and San Diego County Credit Union re 2012 Chrysler Town & Country


    Also #3 EH   

    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Joseph Albert Stamas Jr. Represented By Stephen H Darrow

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Markita Marie Stamas Represented By Stephen H Darrow

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20627


    Joseph Albert Stamas, Jr. and Markita Marie Stamas


    Chapter 7


    #3.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Navy Federal Credit Union re 2006 Lexus


    Also #2 EH   

    Docket 16


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Joseph Albert Stamas Jr. Represented By Stephen H Darrow

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Markita Marie Stamas Represented By Stephen H Darrow

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20446


    Armando Gonzalez


    Chapter 7


    #4.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation re 2018 Toyota Camry


    EH   


    Docket 7


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Armando Gonzalez Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20204


    Ryan Karlsson and Tiffany Miller


    Chapter 7


    #5.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and LDS Financial Credit Union re 2017 Chevrolet Suburban


    Also #6 EH   

    Docket 12


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Ryan Karlsson Represented By Mark D Edelbrock

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Tiffany Miller Represented By Mark D Edelbrock

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20204


    Ryan Karlsson and Tiffany Miller


    Chapter 7


    #6.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and CarMax Auto Finance re 2015 Ford Fusion Hybrid


    Also #5 EH   

    Docket 11


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Ryan Karlsson Represented By Mark D Edelbrock

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Tiffany Miller Represented By Mark D Edelbrock

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20131


    Oscar Manuel Garcia Velasco and Martha Guadalupe


    Chapter 7


    #7.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Santander Consumer USA Inc. re 17 Nissan Sentra


    EH   


    Docket 12


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Oscar Manuel Garcia Velasco Represented By Marlin Branstetter

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Martha Guadalupe Sanchez Represented By Marlin Branstetter

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19444


    Flor Flores


    Chapter 7


    #8.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation re 2014 Toyota Corolla


    EH   


    Docket 15


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Flor Flores Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-18827


    Myloan Thi Truong


    Chapter 7


    #9.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC by LoanCare, LLC as attorney-in-fact under a limited Power of Attorney


    EH   


    Docket 21

    *** VACATED *** REASON: HEARING SET IN ERROR

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Myloan Thi Truong Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:16-18319


    YBF Tax, Inc.


    Chapter 7


    #10.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 70


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/2019

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 3,980.42 Trustee Expenses: $ 48.95


    Attorney Fees: $ 26,415.67 Attorney Costs: $ 305.73


    Accountant Fees: $10,276.81 Accountant Costs: $327.37


    Franchise Tax Board: $1,244.76


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    YBF Tax, Inc. Represented By Ronald W Ask

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    YBF Tax, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Lovee D Sarenas

    11:00 AM

    6:16-10197


    Ferdinand D Castillo


    Chapter 7


    #11.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 102


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/2019

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 27,029.62 Trustee Expenses: $ 997.20


    Attorney Fees: $ 21,767 Tax Preparer Fee: $1,000

    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ferdinand D Castillo Represented By Walter Scott

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By William Malcolm

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Ferdinand D Castillo


    Christina J O


    Chapter 7

    11:00 AM

    6:18-14560


    Nancy S Quiroz Velazquez


    Chapter 7


    #12.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 32


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/2019

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The applications for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 375.00 Trustee Expenses: $ 29.10


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Nancy S Quiroz Velazquez Represented By Salvatore Bommarito

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-17820


    Saul Mena, Jr.


    Chapter 7


    #13.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 24


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/19

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The applications for compensation of the has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 1,129.71 Trustee Expenses: $ 0.00


    The amounts above reflect a reduction of the entirety of the requested expenses because Trustee has not submitted any evidence to justify or detail the requested expenses.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Trustee may decline to appear and will be deemed to submit to the tentative. Trustee also may provide a supplemental declaration prior to the hearing.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Saul Mena Jr. Represented By Daniel King

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:16-20320


    Joyce Miller Black


    Chapter 7


    #14.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH    

    Docket 25


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/2019

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 265.46 Trustee Expenses: $ 133.34


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joyce Miller Black Represented By George P Hobson Jr

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:16-19934


    Juan Mancilla


    Chapter 7


    #15.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 22


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/19

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 438.87 Trustee Expenses: $ 0.00


    The amounts above reflect a reduction of the entirety of the requested expenses because Trustee has not provided any evidence to justify or detail the requested expenses.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Trustee may decline to appear and will be deemed to submit to the tentative. Trustee also may provide a supplemental declaration prior to the hearing.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Juan Mancilla Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Juan Mancilla


    Chapter 7

    11:00 AM

    6:19-11517


    Tatiana Noemi Alegre


    Chapter 7


    #16.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Confirming Termination of Stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(j) or That No Stay is in Effect under 11 U.S.C.

    362(c)(4)(A)(ii) 17253 Emerson Street, Victorville, CA 92394 MOVANT: FRPA TRUST

    EH   


    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Tatiana Noemi Alegre Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    FRPA Trust Represented By

    Joshua L Scheer

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15065


    Bruce Bestul and Geraldine Bestul


    Chapter 7


    #17.00 Motion to Vacate Discharge Order To Approve Reaffirmation Agreement EH   

    Docket 20

    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/2019

    BACKGROUND


    On June 15, 2018, Bruce & Geraldine Bestul ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On September 24, 2018, Debtors received a discharge, and their case was closed the next day.


    On October 31, 2018, Debtors filed a motion to reopen case in order to amend their schedules. On November 26, 2018, Debtors’ case was reopened. Debtors never filed amended schedules but, one day before their case was set to be closed again, Debtors filed a motion to vacate discharge to approve reaffirmation agreement. On February 13, 2019, the Court set the matter for hearing.


    DISCUSSION



    As noted by the Court in its order setting hearing, the clear majority of the caselaw holds that a debtor cannot vacate a discharge to enter into a reaffirmation agreement. See, e.g., In re Judson, 586 B.R. 771, 773 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2018); In re Mardy, 2011 WL 917545 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011); In re Wilhelm, 369 B.R. 882 (Bankr. M.D.N.C.

    2007); In re Rigal, 254 B.R. 145, 147-48 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2000). The caselaw cited

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Bruce Bestul and Geraldine Bestul


    Chapter 7

    by Debtors in their motion does not indicate otherwise. Disch v. Rasmussen, 417 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2005) does not deal with reaffirmation agreements at all, and In re Solomon, 15 B.R. 105 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1981) has been generally disagreed with by subsequent caselaw.


    The Court provided Debtors with an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in support of their request. Debtors have not filed any supplemental brief. Therefore, the Court is inclined to hold, as a matter of law, that Debtors are not permitted to vacate their discharge to enter into a reaffirmation agreement.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Bruce Bestul Represented By

    Lionel E Giron

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Geraldine Bestul Represented By Lionel E Giron

    Movant(s):

    Bruce Bestul Represented By

    Lionel E Giron

    Geraldine Bestul Represented By Lionel E Giron

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Bruce Bestul and Geraldine Bestul


    Chapter 7

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:15-21418


    James Lloyd Walker


    Chapter 7


    #18.00 Application for Compensation First Interim Application of Best Best & Krieger LLP For Allowance of Fees and Reimbursement of Costs for Caroline Djang, Trustee's Attorney, Period: 3/21/2016 to 2/5/2019, Fee: $41,094.50, Expenses:

    $2,029.69.


    EH   


    Docket 146

    *** VACATED *** REASON: AMENDED APPLICATION SET FOR 3/27/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    James Lloyd Walker Represented By

    Andrew Edward Smyth

    Movant(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

    11:00 AM

    6:13-23186


    Richard C Cox, Jr


    Chapter 7


    #19.00 CONT Motion for Turnover of Insurance Renewal Commissions From: 8/22/18, 9/12/18, 11/14/18, 1/16/19

    EH    


    Docket 150

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/22/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Richard C Cox Jr Represented By Summer M Shaw

    Movant(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

    11:00 AM

    6:12-33455


    Sergio Reyes and Maria De Los Angeles Reyes


    Chapter 7


    #20.00 Motion to Sell Property of the Estate Free and Clear of Liens under Section 363(f) - Motion for Order: (1) Authorizing Sale of Estates Right, Title and Interest in Real Property Free and Clear of Liens; (2) Approving Overbid Procedure; (3) Approving Payment of Real Estate Brokers Commissions; and (4) Finding Purchaser is a Good Faith Purchaser


    EH       


    Docket 124

    Tentative Ruling:

    3/13/19

    BACKGROUND

    On October 17, 2012, Sergio & Maria Reyes ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On February 13, 2013, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. When Debtors reached the end of their Chapter 13 plan, the plan had not been completed according to its terms, and the Chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to dismiss if the payoff amount of $4,137 was not received. On October 6, 2017, one week after the filing of the motion to dismiss, Debtors filed a notice of conversion to Chapter 7. On November 28, 2017, Debtors filed a motion to convert back to Chapter 13; that motion was denied on December 27, 2017.

    On June 6, 2018, the Court approved a compromise between Debtors and the Chapter 7 Trustee. Pursuant to the terms of the compromise, Debtors were to purchase the estate’s interest in certain property, including certain real property located at 600 N. Hollow Ave., West Covina, CA 91790 (the "Property"), for the amount of $108,500, payable within ninety days of the entry of the order. Ultimately, Debtors did not tender the settlement payment.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Sergio Reyes and Maria De Los Angeles Reyes

    Chapter 7

    On February 20, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for an order: (1) authorizing sale of estate’ right, title and interest in real property free and clear of liens; (2) approving overbid procedures; (3) approving payment of real estate commissions; and (4) finding purchaser is a good faith purchaser. Trustee proposes to sell the property to Trung Le (the "Purchaser") for $525,000. Proposed payments from the proceeds include: (1) $42,000 for closing costs; and (2) $275,472.11 for World Savings (i.e. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.), leaving $207,527.89 for the bankruptcy estate. On February 25, 2019, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a conditional non-opposition, requesting certain language be included in the sale order.

    DISCUSSION


    1. Sale of Estate Property


      11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1) allows a trustee to sell property of the estate outside of the ordinary course, after notice and a hearing. A sale pursuant to § 363(b) requires a demonstration that the sale has a valid business justification. In re 240 North Brand Parners, Ltd., 200 B.R. 653, 659 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996). "In approving any sale outside the ordinary course of business, the court must not only articulate a sufficient business reason for the sale, it must further find it is in the best interest of the estate,

      i.e. it is fair and reasonable, that it has been given adequate marketing, that it has been negotiated and proposed in good faith, that the purchaser is proceeding in good faith, and that it is an "arms-length" transaction." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. 830, 841 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.).


      The motion contains some evidence of the Property’s marketing. Given the fact that the sale appears to be a good faith, arms-length transaction, and the fact that it appears that the sale will result in a surplus estate, the Court concludes that Trustee has articulated an adequate business reason for the sale.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Sergio Reyes and Maria De Los Angeles Reyes

    2. Sale Free & Clear of Liens


      Chapter 7


      11 U.S.C. § 363(f) (2010) states:


      1. The trustee may sell property under subsection (b) or (c) of this section free and clear of any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate, only if-


        1. applicable nonbankruptcy law permits sale of such property free and clear of such interest;

        2. such entity consents;

        3. such interest is a lien and the price at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on such property;

        4. such interest is in bona fide dispute; or

        5. such entity could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of such interest.


          Here, the only lien on the Property is the first mortgage originally held by World Savings Bank, FSB, now held by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. The amount of this lien,

          $275,472.11, is far less than the sale price of the Property and, therefore, § 363(f)(3) permits Trustee to sell the Property free and clear of liens.


    3. 14-Day Stay


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 6004(h) states: "An order authorizing the use, sale, or lease of property other than cash collateral is stayed until the expiration of 14 days after entry of the order, unless the court orders otherwise." The Court deems the absence of

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Sergio Reyes and Maria De Los Angeles Reyes


      Chapter 7

      objections to be consent to the relief requested, pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h), and, therefore, will waive the stay of Rule 6004(h).


    4. Miscellaneous Provisions


The Court has reviewed the remainder of Trustee’s miscellaneous requests. The Court has reviewed the proposed overbidding procedures and finds such procedures to be reasonable. The Court has reviewed the requested Broker compensation of 6% of the sale price (totaling $31,500) and finds such compensation to be reasonable and customary. The Court has reviewed Trustee’s proposed distribution of sale proceeds, and the Court finds that such distribution is reasonable and proper.


Finally, the Court has reviewed the declaration of the Purchaser, and finds the declarations sufficient for a determination that Purchaser is a good faith purchaser pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (m).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion in its entirety. Specifically, the Court is inclined to authorize the sale of the Property free and clear of liens, approve the overbid procedures, approve the Broker’s compensation, determine that the Purchasers are good faith purchasers, waive the 14-day stay under Rule 6004(h), and authorize the proposed payments from the sale proceeds. Sale order to include the language requested by Wells Fargo.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Sergio Reyes and Maria De Los Angeles Reyes


Chapter 7

Sergio Reyes Represented By

Patricia A Mireles

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria De Los Angeles Reyes Represented By Patricia A Mireles

Movant(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy

Anthony A Friedman

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy

Anthony A Friedman

11:00 AM

6:12-27237


Joanna Martinez Canfield


Chapter 7


#21.00 Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case EH   

Docket 22

Tentative Ruling:

3/13/19

BACKGROUND


On July 24, 2012, Joanna Canfield ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On November 5, 2012, Debtor received a discharge, and the case was subsequently closed.


On March 13, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to reopen case in order to file a motion to avoid lien. No opposition to the motion has been received by the Court.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 350(b) states: "A case may be reopened in the court in which such case was closed to administer assets, to accord relief to the debtor, or for other cause." Debtor’s motion indicates that she wishes to reopen the case to attempt to file a motion to avoid lien.


Motions to reopen bankruptcy cases "should be routinely granted." In re Dodge, 138

11:00 AM

CONT...


Joanna Martinez Canfield


Chapter 7

B.R. 602, 605 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1992). "While the Code does not define ‘other cause’ for purposes of reopening a case under section 350(b), the decision to reopen is discretionary with the court, which may consider numerous factors, including equitable concerns, and ought to emphasize substance over technical considerations." 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 350.03[5] (16th ed. 2016). This Court routinely grants motions to reopen to allow debtors to file motions to avoid liens, as the avoidance of such lien could be characterized as affording relief to the debtor.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion and REOPEN the case for a period of ninety days.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joanna Martinez Canfield Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Joanna Martinez Canfield Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-17730


Sally Jeanne Way


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01238 Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation


#22.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01238. Complaint by Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation. (Charge To Estate). Verified Complaint for: 1) Quiet Title; 2) Cancellation of Instrument; and 3) Declaratory Relief Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Iskander, Brandon)


From: 2/6/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/10/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sally Jeanne Way Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Brandon J Iskander

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

2:00 PM

6:18-17663


Stephen Richard Morales


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01242 Forniss et al v. Morales et al


#23.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01242. Complaint by Steven John Forniss against Stephan Richard Morales, Diane Forniss Morales, Todd Turoci. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Firman, Fritz)


From: 3/6/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/22/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephen Richard Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Stephan Richard Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Diane Forniss Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Diane Forniss Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Stephen Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

2:00 PM

CONT...


Stephen Richard Morales


Chapter 7

Alfonso Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-16905


Tina M Coca


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01216 Addison v. Coca


#24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01216. Complaint by Chelsea Addison against Tina M Coca. willful and malicious injury)),(41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e))),(02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy)))


From: 1/9/19 EH       

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/22/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tina M Coca Represented By

Emilia N McAfee

Defendant(s):

Tina M Coca Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Chelsea Addison Represented By David C Parisi Ethan M Preston

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-14862


Luz Diaz


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01009 Diaz v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Association Ban


#25.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01009. Complaint by Luz Diaz against WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Association Banking Entity, CACH, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property))


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 2/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Luz Diaz Represented By

Richard L Barrett

Defendant(s):

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a Pro Se

CACH, LLC, A California Limited Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Luz Diaz Represented By

Richard L Barrett

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-13096


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01219 Candee et al v. Ayoub et al


#26.00 Motion for Reasonable Attorney Fees (Lieberg, Jon) EH   

Docket 41

Tentative Ruling:

3/13/19

BACKGROUND

On April 6, 2016, Tarek and Gabriela Ayoub ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On April 12, 2016, Debtors’ case was dismissed for failure to file initial petition documents. On April 13, 2016, Debtors filed a motion to vacate dismissal; that motion was granted on April 15, 2016. On May 4, 2016, Debtors’ case was again dismissed for failure to file schedules, statements, and/or plan. Two days later, Debtors filed a second motion to vacate dismissal; on May 26, 2016, the second motion to vacate dismissal was granted. On October 27, 2016, the Debtors moved to convert their case to a case under chapter 7. The case was converted on October 31, 2016. Among the creditors of the Debtors’ estate are Keith Candee and Original Thurber Ranch, LLC (collectively, the "Candee Parties" or "Plaintiffs").

On August 26, 2016, the Candee Parties filed a complaint to determine dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) ("Complaint"). The Complaint generally alleges that the Candee Parties held validly recorded easements which burdened the Debtors’ property. The Complaint further alleges that despite their knowledge of the validity of the easements, the Debtors interfered with the Candee Parties’ use of the easements, trespassed on the Plaintiffs’ property, committed unlawful acts of violence, threatened the Plaintiffs, and placed a fence to attempt to exercise domain over the disputed property.

2:00 PM

CONT...

Tarek El Sayed Ayoub

Chapter 7


On June 10, 2015, the Superior Court of California in the County of Riverside (the "State Court") rendered Judgment ("Judgment") in favor of the Plaintiffs in the state court action entitled Gabriela Ayoub v. Keith H. Candee and related cross-action, Case No. MCC1301436 (the "State Court Action"). The State Court’s Judgment was supported by a statement of decision setting forth its factual findings and conclusions of law (the "Decision"). The Decision makes clear that the grounds for damages was based on findings that the Debtors committed intentional torts of conversion, trespass, and private nuisance interfering with easements.


On November 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. The Debtors filed their response on December 19, 2018. On January 18, 2019, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment and entered a non-dischargeability judgment in favor of Plaintiffs.


On February 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reasonable attorney fees, requesting

$115,703.91 in relation to the prosecution of the adversary proceeding and related disputes in Debtors’ main bankruptcy cases. On February 27, 2019, Debtors filed their opposition, arguing that Plaintiffs have not provided a valid legal basis for their claim.


DISCUSSION



Plaintiffs argue that that Court has "the power to award attorney fees under state laws." [Dkt. 41, ¶ 21]. In support of this contention, Plaintiffs provide two cases which include examples of federal courts awarding attorney fees under "state law". The first, Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007) involved a contractual provision which provided for payment of attorney fees in the situation. Here, however, Plaintiffs have not alleged that a contractual agreement is the source of their attorney fee request. In the second case, Ryan v.

Editions Ltd. West, Inc., 786 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit upheld an award of attorney fees based on a California statute. As noted in the second, in appropriate circumstances a federal court can authorize an award of attorney fees based on a state statute.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


Chapter 7


Here, Plaintiffs’ argument appears to be the following: (1) the state court awarded attorney fees under CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1021.9 and 2033.420; and (2) Plaintiffs should be entitled to attorney fees for defending the judgment. In support of the latter, Plaintiffs offer the following:


When a party is entitled to an award of attorney fees in the court of first instance, that party is ordinarily entitled to recover fees incurred in successfully defending the judgment on appeal. Although this was not an appeal, this was an attempt to overturn a final state court judgment.


[Dkt. No 41, ¶ 26] (citation omitted). The Court notes that the Ninth Circuit in Voice

  1. Stormans Inc., 757 F.3d 1015, 1016 (9th Cir. 2014) cited a number of Ninth Circuit cases which stand for the proposition that "a party that is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in the district court is also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal."


    As conceded by Plaintiffs, however, the instant action was not an appeal. Nor is the filing of a bankruptcy case "an attempt to overturn a final state court judgment." While an appeal and a bankruptcy filing may both represent attempts to extinguish liability on a judgment, there are legal differences between the two situations which are material here.


    CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 1021.9 provides:


    In any action to recover damages to personal or real property resulting from trespassing on lands either under cultivation or intended or used for the raising of livestock, the prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs, and in addition to any liability for damages imposed by law.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


    Chapter 7


    And the other state law basis for attorney fees cited by Plaintiffs, CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 2033.420 relates to attorney fees arising out of non-cooperation during the discovery state of litigation.


    Technically, while Plaintiffs’ defense of its state court judgment on appeal would likely be considered to fall within the purview of CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 1021.9, as it would stem from the same action that was heard in the state trial court, the non- dischargeability proceeding represents a different action – an action to declare the state court judgment to be non-dischargeable. This is an important distinction.

    Typically, in a non-dischargeability proceeding a creditor is not entitled to an award of attorney fees. See In re Butcher, 200 B.R. 675, 678 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1996) ("Attorneys fees are not recoverable by a creditor in a dischargeability action under the Code."); see also In re Johnson, 756 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1985) (state law attorney fees not allowed for litigating questions of pure bankruptcy law).


    In Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007), the Supreme Court, overruled the Ninth Circuit’s Fobian rule, and provided a clearer avenue for creditors to seek attorney fees, based on state law, for litigation which occurs in bankruptcy court. Nevertheless, there still must be a valid state law basis for the claim of attorney fees. See, e.g., GINSBERG & MARTIN ON BANKRUPTCY § 11.07 (5th ed. 2019) ("A creditor who prevails on a nondischargeability action under § 523 is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and have them held nondischargeable along with the debt if the prevailing creditor has a statutory or contractual right to recover attorneys’ fees.") (collecting cases). And courts have continued to conservatively apply state law attorney fee statutes to non-dishchargeability proceedings. See, e.g., In re Levitt, 2008 WL 8448069 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008); see also In re Dinan, 448 B.R.

    775 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011).


    Here, neither of the state law bases for attorney fees are applicable to this proceeding. Plaintiffs did not request a monetary judgment, but rather relied on their state court judgment and collateral estoppel, and, therefore CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 1021.9 is inapplicable since there was "no action to recover damages." And CAL. CIV. P. CODE

    § 2033.420 is inapplicable because the relevant discovery violation did not occur in

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


    Chapter 7

    this proceeding or this court. Therefore, Plaintiffs not having pointed to a valid legal basis for attorney fees under state law, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion without prejudice.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Tarek El Sayed Ayoub Represented By Sherif Fathy

    Defendant(s):

    Tarek El Sayed Ayoub Pro Se

    Gabriela VIlleda Ayoub Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Gabriela Villeda Ayoub Represented By Sherif Fathy

    Movant(s):

    Keith H Candee Represented By Jon H Lieberg

    Original Thurber Ranch LLC Represented By Jon H Lieberg

    Plaintiff(s):

    Keith H Candee Represented By Jon H Lieberg

    Original Thurber Ranch LLC Represented By Jon H Lieberg

    Trustee(s):

    Wesley H Avery (TR) Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Tarek El Sayed Ayoub


    Larry D Simons


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:15-14230


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01102 PRINGLE v. Capital One Bank (USA), National Association


    #27.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01102. Complaint by JOHN PRINGLE against Capital One Bank (USA), National Association. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for: (1) Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3439.04(a)(2), 3439.05; (2)

    Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B); (3) Recovery of Avoided Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550; and (4) Disallowance of Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer))


    From: 9/5/18, 11/7/18, 1/9/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 2/7/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

    Defendant(s):

    Capital One Bank (USA), National Represented By

    Kevin M Eckhardt

    Plaintiff(s):

    JOHN PRINGLE Represented By Robert P Goe

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Charity J Manee


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:15-14230


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01213 Pringle v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chas


    #28.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01213. Complaint by John Pringle against JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, National Association. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

    Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) From: 1/9/19

    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/5/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

    Defendant(s):

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

    Christopher O Rivas

    Chase Bank USA, National Represented By Christopher O Rivas

    Plaintiff(s):

    John Pringle Represented By

    Robert P Goe

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:03-15174


    Devore Stop A General Partners


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


    #29.00 CONT Status Conference re Order to Show Cause Why Jesse Bojorquez, American Business Investments, William Morschauser, Stephen Collias and Continental Capital, LLC, Should Not Be Sanctioned for Facilitating Payment to and/or Receiving Payment for Broker Services in Contravention of this Court's August 11, 2003, Sale Order


    From: 1/22/19, 1/23/19 Also #30

    EH   


    Docket 242


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

    Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

    Devore Stop Represented By

    Hutchison B Meltzer

    Defendant(s):

    Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

    Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

    Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Devore Stop A General Partners


    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ


    Chapter 7

    American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

    Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:03-15174


    Devore Stop A General Partners


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


    #30.00 CONT Status Conference re Order to Show Cause Why Jesse Bojorquez, American Business Investments, William Morschauser, Stephen Collias and Continental Capital, LLC, Should Not Be Sanctioned for Facilitating Payment to and/or Receiving Payment for Broker Services in Contravention of this Court's August 11, 2003, Sale Order


    From: 1/22/19, 1/23/19 Also #29

    EH   


    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: DUPLICATE HEARING SET IN ERROR

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

    Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

    Devore Stop Represented By

    Hutchison B Meltzer

    Defendant(s):

    Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

    Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

    Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Devore Stop A General Partners


    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ


    Chapter 7

    American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

    Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20092


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01061 Farah v. Bastorous et al


    #31.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding EH   

    Docket 47

    Tentative Ruling:

    03/13/19

    BACKGROUND


    On December 8, 2017, Mark Bastorous & Bernadette Shenouda ("Debtors" or "Defendants") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition.


    On March 12, 2018, Mina Farah ("Plaintiff" or "Creditor") filed a complaint against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda, and Does 1-10, inclusive ("Defendants") for nondischargeability pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A). On April 11, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint on May 3, 2018. On June 4, 2018, Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss. Ultimately, on October 22, 2018, the Court granted the motion, requiring Plaintiff to provide more detail to meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud. The next day, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On November 6, 2018, Defendants filed a third motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2019, the Court granted the motion, requiring Plaintiff to clearly articulate the state law basis of the debt if Plaintiff was going to request a judgment which included monetary and punitive damages.


    On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed her third amended complaint (the "TAC"). On January 25, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss (the "MTD"), arguing that Plaintiff improperly requested monetary and punitive damages and failed to plead her state law claim with requisite particularity. On February 26, 2019,

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Plaintiff filed her opposition.


    The TAC alleges the Plaintiff gave the Defendants $241,912.00 to invest in improvements to their real estate firm’s commercial office building. Plaintiff alleges the Defendants intentionally concealed other, pending senior liens on the property during negotiations. Plaintiff further contends that her note and deed of trust from Defendants were intentionally recorded in an untimely manner. The property became over-encumbered, as its fair market value was $2,360,000, but held a total debt of over $3,106,156, providing evidence of no intention to repay creditors. The Plaintiff believes her loan was used to buy a large parcel of property in Hesperia for Defendants’ personal use.


    Plaintiff contends she relied on the Defendants’ misrepresentations when offering the loan, and would not have offered a loan but for the false promises. Her numerous repayment demands in 2016 and 2017 were unsuccessful. Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants made false representations in a similar manner to another lender, Anis Khalil. Plaintiff asks for compensatory damages in the amount of $386,452, and punitive damages in the amount of $772,904.


    DISCUSSION


    1. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD


      To avoid dismissal pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege sufficient factual matter, which if accepted as true, would "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.

      v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a court can draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct. Id. The plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Mark Bastorous


      Chapter 7


    2. NON-DISCHARGEABILITY


Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a debt is not discharged for money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. The elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim are well-established: (1) a representation; (2) that the debtor knew was false; (3) that the debtor made with the intention of deceiving the creditor; (4) reliance on the representation by the creditor; (5) and damages as a proximate result of reliance on the representations. See, e.g., In re Eashai, 87 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 1996).


Here, at the hearing on December 12, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the specific grounds that Plaintiff needed to adequately articulate a state law claim to serve as the basis for the request for compensatory and punitive damages. The TAC now includes a second cause of action which is entitled "fraud, deceit, and/or false promise."


Defendants argue that this amendment is inadequate for two reasons. First, Defendants argues that the cause of action merely contains conclusory allegations and is insufficiently plead. As noted by Plaintiff in her opposition, however, Defendants appear to ignore the fact that the second cause of action incorporations the first twenty-seven paragraphs of the complaint into the second cause of action. While the Court agrees with Defendants that, absent that incorporation, the second cause of action may be insufficiently plead, the Court, at an earlier hearing, has already ruled that those first twenty-seven paragraphs adequately meet the heightened pleading standards for claims sounding in fraud. Therefore, the Court rejects this argument.


Second, Defendants argue that it is unclear what type of fraud Plaintiff is pleading. As noted by Plaintiff in her opposition, a plaintiff is typically permitted to plead legal theories in the alternative, and the failure to specify a specific legal theory is not fatal to the complaint. As noted by Plaintiff, and as implicitly recognized by this Court during the hearing of December 12, 2018, Plaintiff has adequately articulated the elements of an intentional misrepresentation, and, therefore, the Court is not inclined

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

to dismiss the second cause of action for failure to state a claim.


Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has improperly requested monetary and punitive damages in the first cause of action. While the Court agrees that it is confusing that Plaintiff has included identical requests for relief for both causes of action, even though the two causes of action should have different requests for relief, the Court cannot conclude that such inartful drafting justifies dismissal of the complaint. It is abundantly clear that the second cause of action is intended to serve as the basis for a monetary judgment, and that the first cause of action is intended to serve as the basis for determining such judgment to be non-dischargeable.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to DENY the motion,


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Movant(s):


Mark Bastorous


Thomas F Nowland


Chapter 7

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

Mina Farah Pro Se

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01062 Khalil v. Bastorous et al


#32.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding EH   

Docket 45

Tentative Ruling:

03/13/2019

BACKGROUND


On December 8, 2017, Mark Bastorous & Bernadette Shenouda filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition.


On March 12, 2018, Anis Khalil ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda, and Does 1-10, inclusive ("Defendants") for nondischargeability pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A). On April 11, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.


Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint on May 3, 2018. On June 4, 2018, Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss. Ultimately, on October 22, 2018, the Court granted the motion, requiring Plaintiff to provide more detail to meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud. The next day, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On November 6, 2018, Defendants filed a third motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2019, the Court granted the motion, requiring Plaintiff to clearly articulate the state law basis of the debt if Plaintiff was going to request a judgment which included monetary and punitive damages.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed her third amended complaint (the "TAC"). On January 25, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss (the "MTD"), arguing that Plaintiff improperly requested monetary and punitive damages and failed to plead her state law claim with requisite particularity. On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed her opposition.


The TAC alleges the Plaintiff gave the Defendants around $260,000.00 to invest in improvements to their real estate firm’s commercial office building. Plaintiff alleges the Defendants intentionally concealed other, pending senior liens on the property during negotiations. Plaintiff further contends that her note and deed of trust from Defendants were intentionally recorded in an untimely manner. The property became over-encumbered, as its fair market value was $2,360,000, but held a total debt of over $3,106,156, providing evidence of no intention to repay creditors. The Plaintiff believes his loan was used to buy a large parcel of property in Hesperia for Defendants’ personal use.


Plaintiff contends he relied on the Defendants’ misrepresentations when offering the loan, and would not have offered a loan but for the false promises that the loan would be the senior lien. His numerous repayment demands in 2016 and 2017 were unsuccessful. Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants made false representations in a similar manner to another lender, Mina Farah. Plaintiff asks for compensatory damages of a minimum of $300,000, and punitive damages in a minimum amount of

$600,000.


DISCUSSION


  1. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD


    To avoid dismissal pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege sufficient

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    factual matter, which if accepted as true, would "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.

    v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a court can draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct. Id. The plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id.


  2. NON-DISCHARGEABILITY


Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a debt is not discharged for money obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. The elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim are well-established: (1) a representation; (2) that the debtor knew was false; (3) that the debtor made with the intention of deceiving the creditor; (4) reliance on the representation by the creditor; (5) and damages as a proximate result of reliance on the representations. See, e.g., In re Eashai, 87 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 1996).


Here, at the hearing on December 12, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the specific grounds that Plaintiff needed to adequately articulate a state law claim to serve as the basis for the request for compensatory and punitive damages. The TAC now includes a second cause of action which is entitled "fraud, deceit, and/or false promise."


Defendants argue that this amendment is inadequate for two reasons. First, Defendants argues that the cause of action merely contains conclusory allegations and is insufficiently plead. As noted by Plaintiff in her opposition, however, Defendants appear to ignore the fact that the second cause of action incorporations the first twenty-seven paragraphs of the complaint into the second cause of action. While the Court agrees with Defendants that, absent that incorporation, the second cause of action may be insufficiently plead, the Court, at an earlier hearing, has already ruled that those first twenty-seven paragraphs adequately meet the heightened pleading standards for claims sounding in fraud. Therefore, the Court rejects this argument.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Second, Defendants argue that it is unclear what type of fraud Plaintiff is pleading. As noted by Plaintiff in her opposition, a plaintiff is typically permitted to plead legal theories in the alternative, and the failure to specify a specific legal theory is not fatal to the complaint. As noted by Plaintiff, and as implicitly recognized by this Court during the hearing of December 12, 2018, Plaintiff has adequately articulated the elements of an intentional misrepresentation, and, therefore, the Court is not inclined to dismiss the second cause of action for failure to state a claim.


Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has improperly requested monetary and punitive damages in the first cause of action. While the Court agrees that it is confusing that Plaintiff has included identical requests for relief for both causes of action, even though the two causes of action should have different requests for relief, the Court cannot conclude that such inartful drafting justifies dismissal of the complaint. It is abundantly clear that the second cause of action is intended to serve as the basis for a monetary judgment, and that the first cause of action is intended to serve as the basis for determining such judgment to be non-dischargeable.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to DENY the motion,


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Movant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

Anis Khalil Pro Se

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:18-16811


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


#33.00 CONT Hearing re Summary Judgment - Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 2 Declaration of Nathan R. Klein in Support of Defendants Tyler & Bursch, LLP and Jennifer L. Bursch's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 3 Declaration of Jennfer L. Bursch in Support of Defendants Tyler & Bursch, LLP and Jennifer L. Bursch's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 4 Compendium of Exhibits in Support of Defendants Tyler & Bursch, LLP and Jennifer L. Bursch's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 5 Declaration of Service) (Tyler, Robert)

(MOTION TO DISMISS CONVERTED TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)


From: 11/29/18 Also #34 & #35 EH   

Docket 5

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/30/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Donna Roberto Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

Jennifer Bursch Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Movant(s):


Donna Roberto


Robert H Tyler


Chapter 13

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

Plaintiff(s):

Donna Roberto Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-16811


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


#34.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01186 Complaint by Donna Roberto against Tyler & Bursch, LLP, Jennifer Bursch. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)


From: 11/29/18 Also #33 & #35 EH       

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Donna Roberto Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler

Plaintiff(s):

Donna Roberto Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-16811


Donna Roberto


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


#35.00 Status Conference RE: [10] Counterclaim by Tyler & Bursch, LLP against Tyler & Bursch, LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter Dated 3/17/17 # 2 Exhibit Letter Dated 4/14/17) (Tyler, Robert)


Also #33 & #34 EH   

Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Donna Roberto Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler

Plaintiff(s):

Donna Roberto Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

3:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:09-01235 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#36.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19


EH      


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

David Loughnot

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 7

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K. DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

3:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#37.00 CONT Motion By Defendant Empire Partners, Inc To Compel Compliance With Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Timothy Sullivan, And For Sanctions


From: 1/30/19 Also #38

EH   


Docket 498

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Paul Roman Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Movant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


Chapter 7

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

Michael I Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

3:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#38.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

01/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19


Also #37 EH      

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Paul Roman Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

Michael I Gottfried

3:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Empire Land, LLC


Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur


Chapter 7

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

3:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01329 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#39.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

(Defendant - Empire Partners, Inc) HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19


EH      


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 7

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Previti Realty Fund, L.P. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

The James Previti Family Trust Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

3:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond


Chapter 7

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00102 Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al


#40.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Bruce Deal, and For Sanctions


From: 1/30/19 EH   

Docket 6

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners Inc Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Paul Roman Pro Se

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Movant(s):

Empire Partners Inc Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

3:00 PM

CONT...


Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al

Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 0

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00103 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#41.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Analysis Group, Inc., and For Sanctions


From: 1/30/19 EH   

Docket 2

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Paul Roman Pro Se

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

3:00 PM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00104 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#42.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party William Haegele, and For Sanctions


From: 1/30/19 EH    

Docket 2

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb

Paul Roman Pro Se

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Movant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

3:00 PM

CONT...


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al

Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 0

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00105 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#43.00 CONT Motion for Protective Order re Third Party Subpoena From: 1/30/19

Also #44 EH   

Docket 11

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

3:00 PM

CONT...


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Peter Healy Pro Se

Paul Roman Pro Se

Movant(s):

KPMG LLP Represented By

Richard W Esterkin

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Pro Se

3:00 PM

:


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

Misc#: 6:18-00105 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


#44.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party KPMG LLP, and For Sanctions


From: 1/30/19 Also #43

EH   


Docket 2

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/27/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

3:00 PM

CONT...


Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


Chapter 0

O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

Peter Healy Pro Se

Paul Roman Pro Se

Movant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Larry R Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Neil Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

Richard K Diamond Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:13-18779


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Motion For Order Denying Discharge Or Dismissing Case From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 172

Tentative Ruling:

1/31/19

BACKGROUND


On May 17, 2013, Rigoberto Baez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 25, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was subsequently amended on two occasions.


On December 6, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of final cure mortgage payment. On December 27, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. filed a response, stating that Debtor was

$11,338.57 delinquent in post-confirmation payments.


On December 28, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to deny discharge or, in the alternative, dismiss the case. Because Trustee has only provided legal analysis support dismissal of the case, not citing any legal basis to deny a discharge in this situation, the Court will consider the motion as a motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The opposition asserts that Debtor disputes Wells Fargo’s accounting, and that Debtor will work with Wells Fargo to resolve the situation.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13

DISCUSSION



As noted by Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(6) states:


(c) Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including ---


    1. material default by the debtor with respect to a term of a confirmed plan


Trustee asserts that direct payments to Wells Fargo are payments under the plan, and the default in this case is material. Debtor has not provided any contrary legal authority on either point. The Court agrees with Trustee that direct payments to a lender are still considered payments under the plan. See, e.g., In Matter of Kessley, 655 Fed. Appx. 242, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); see also In re Evans, 543 B.R. 213 (Bankr.

E.D. Va. 2016) (collecting cases). The Court also agrees that the post-confirmation default of $11,338.57 is material, assuming that that figure is accurate.


TENTATIVE RULING



Debtor to apprise the Court of the status of the post-confirmation delinquency and any efforts to resolve the situation with Wells Fargo. Absent resolution, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13

Rigoberto Baez Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-13931


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13


#2.00 Motion For Hardship Discharge Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 1328(b) Also #3

EH       


Docket 122

Tentative Ruling:

3/14/19

BACKGROUND


On March 28, 2014, Annie Estrada ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On August 6, 2014, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted a § 506(d) lien avoidance motion, avoiding the junior lien of E*Trade Bank, in the amount of $204,000, upon receipt of a Chapter 13 discharge. There have been two orders to modify the plan in this case.


On February 21, 2019, Debtor filed a motion for hardship discharge. The basis for the hardship discharge is that Debtor’s household financial situation has gradually declined since 2016. Debtor also notes that March 2019 would have been the last month in the plan had Debtor remained current, and Debtor appears to assert that she has the ability to pay off the plan if given some additional time.


DISCUSSION

11:00 AM

CONT...


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13

11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) states:


  1. Subject to subsection (d), at any time after the confirmation of the plan and after notice and a hearing, the court may grant a discharge to a debtor that has not completed payments under the plan only if –


    1. the debtor’s failure to complete such payments is due to circumstances for which the debtor should not justly be held accountable;


    2. the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property actually distributed under the plan on account of each allowed unsecured claim is not less than the amount that would have been paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor had been liquidated under chapter 7 of this title on such date; and


    3. modification of the plan under section 1329 of this title is not practicable.


The first and third standard are discretionary standards. The second standard is a mechanical standard referred to as the "best interests of creditors test". Regarding this second standard, the Court notes that a review of the Debtor’s schedules in this case demonstrates that Debtor had no unexempt equity in any property to distribute to creditors in a hypothetical liquidation. Therefore, Debtor has satisfied 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)(2).


Regarding 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)(3), the Court notes that modification of the plan is not practical due to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 1329(c), which provides that a plan modification cannot extend the plan commitment period past five years. For this reason, it appears that plan modification is not feasible in the instant case.


Regarding 11 U.S.C. §1328(b)(1), the motion for hardship discharge states that Debtor’s spouse was the primary earner in the household, but his income (from sales

11:00 AM

CONT...


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13

work as an independent contractor) began to diminish in 2016. Subsequently, Debtor’s spouse has taken on additional employment has an Uber/Lyft driver, but Debtor and her husband are unable to pay their household bills, let alone the plan payment. The Court notes that the expenses identified in the attachment to the instant motion depicts lean expenses, although the cost of Debtor’s home is extraordinarily high compared to the household income.


On the record before the Court, the Court is unable to determine whether "the debtor’s failure to complete such payments is due to circumstances for which the debtor should not justly be held accountable." Specifically, the earning potential of Debtor’s spouse, and the ability of Debtor to financially contribute to the family, are less than clear. The Court also notes that upon receipt of discharge in the instant case, Debtor will extinguish a junior lien of $204,000 on Debtor’s home. Furthermore, pursuant to the motion, it appears that Debtor only owes $27.98 in outstanding prepetition arrears and

$200 to unsecured creditors under the plan. Given the lack of specificity in the instant motion, the amount of the junior lien to be avoided, and Debtor’s assertion that she could "scrape together enough to pay unsecured claims" pursuant to the plan, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE this matter and the hearing on the motion to dismiss for Debtor to attempt to complete the plan.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen

Movant(s):

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-13931


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency From: 2/28/19

Also #2 EH   

Docket 118


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-10385


Adolfo Gonzalez and Angelica Gonzalez


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

Docket 85

Tentative Ruling:

3/14/19

BACKGROUND


On January 17, 2016, Adolfo & Angelica Gonzalez ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On April 28, 2017, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The plan was subsequently modified once.


On January 7, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to make plan payments. On February 7, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the matter, no appearance was made on behalf of Debtors, and the Court dismissed the case.


On February 11, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal arguing that the case was dismissed due to the excusable neglect of Debtors because Adolfo Gonzalez fractured his foot in January 2019 and was preoccupied with medical care and expenses. This being the case, it appears that the proximate cause of the dismissal on February 7, 2019 was the failure to Debtors’ attorney to promptly take action to address the situation, or to appear at the hearing and advocate for Debtors. The motion contains no explanation as to why Debtors’ counsel did not appear at the hearing.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Adolfo Gonzalez and Angelica Gonzalez


Chapter 13

DISCUSSION



Debtor relies on FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, which allows for relief from an order based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."


While Debtors’ argue that the case was dismissed due to excusable neglect after Adolfo Gonzalez fractured his foot, the Court is also concerned that Debtors’ counsel did not appear at the hearing on Trustee’s motion to dismiss. It is well established that "an attorney’s ignorance and carelessness does not provide grounds for Rule 60(b) relief." In re Mercado, 144 B.R. 879, 886 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972). And the mere assertion that counsel did not fulfill its duties, but that such carelessness was inadvertent, is clearly inadequate to support Rule 60(b) relief. See, e.g., In re ACME Motors, Inc., 125 B.R. 702, 703 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1991).


"Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary." Id. Yet, in this court, a request for relief from a Chapter 13 dismissal order has become semi-ordinary. On occasion, the requests are legally sound. Here, however, the evidence provided simply indicates that Debtor’s counsel did not attend the hearing for reasons that do not appear to be credible.


The Seventh Circuit has stated that:


[T]he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds. The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does not present exceptional circumstances.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Adolfo Gonzalez and Angelica Gonzalez


Chapter 13

Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009). "Although attorney carelessness can [in certain circumstances] constitute ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney’s somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion conditioned on compliance with the Trustee’s conditions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Jamie Cuevas to personally appear at the hearing.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Adolfo Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Joint Debtor(s):

Angelica Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Movant(s):

Adolfo Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Angelica Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-13239


Gerald Bauer


Chapter 13


#5.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

Docket 43

Tentative Ruling:

3/14/19

BACKGROUND


On April 19, 2017, Gerald Bauer ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 13, 2017, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On December 13, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for plan infeasibility. On January 31, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the matter, and continued Trustee’s motion for one week for Debtor to lodge an order on his proposed plan modification. During that one-week period, Debtor did not lodge an order on the motion to modify plan, and no appearance was made on behalf of Debtor at the continued hearing. On February 7, 2019, the Court dismissed Debtor’s case.


On February 8, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal arguing that the case was dismissed due to attorney mistake. Among other things, Debtor’s counsel states that he was informed by Trustee that the motion to dismiss would be withdrawn prior to the hearing. On February 11, 2019, Trustee filed comments indicating conditional approval. Trustee also states that the statement of Debtor’s counsel that regarding withdrawal of the motion to dismiss "is not credible and makes no sense." [Dkt. No. 46, ¶ 1].

11:00 AM

CONT...


Gerald Bauer


Chapter 13


DISCUSSION



Debtor relies on FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, which allows for relief from an order based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."


The legal basis for Debtor’s assertion that the dismissal order should be vacated is that Debtor’s counsel inadvertently did not appear at the hearing due miscommunication with Trustee, an assertion which the Trustee states is not credible. Additionally, it is well established that "an attorney’s ignorance and carelessness does not provide grounds for Rule 60(b) relief." In re Mercado, 144 B.R. 879, 886 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.

1992) (citing Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972). And the mere assertion that counsel did not fulfill its duties, but that such carelessness was inadvertent, is clearly inadequate to support Rule 60(b) relief. See, e.g., In re ACME Motors, Inc., 125 B.R. 702, 703 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1991).


"Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary." Id. Yet, in this court, a request for relief from a Chapter 13 dismissal order has become semi-ordinary. On occasion, the requests are legally sound. Here, however, the evidence provided simply indicates that Debtor’s counsel did not attend the hearing for reasons that do not appear to be credible.


The Seventh Circuit has stated that:


[T]he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds. The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does not present exceptional circumstances.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Gerald Bauer


Chapter 13


Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009). "Although attorney carelessness can [in certain circumstances] constitute ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney’s somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion conditioned on compliance with the Trustee’s conditions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Daniel King to personally appear at the hearing.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gerald Bauer Represented By

Daniel King

Movant(s):

Gerald Bauer Represented By

Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17934


Ignacio Figueroa and Nadia Elizabeth Figueroa


Chapter 13


#6.00 Objection to entry of discharge filed by Alderson Law Group EH   

Docket 80

Tentative Ruling:

3/14/2019

BACKGROUND


On September 21, 2017, Ignacio & Nadia Figueroa ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On November 13, 2017, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On June 11, 2018, Alderson Law Firm ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $240,402.04 ("Claim 5"). On June 29, 2018, Debtors filed an objection to Claim 5, arguing that the claim was filed late because the claims bar deadline was January 24, 2018. On September 4, 2018, the Court sustained the objection, and disallowed Claim 5 in its entirety.


On October 16, 2018, Trustee filed the notice of intent to file final report. On October 19, 2018, Debtors filed their certificates of compliance and applications for entry of discharge. Creditor objected to these applications on November 5, 2018. It is not clear what happened in the interim, but, ultimately, Debtors refiled their certificates of compliance and applications for entry of discharge on January 29, 2019. On February 13, 2019, Creditor objected again. On February 20, 2019, the Court set the matter for hearing. On March 6, 2019, Debtors filed an opposition to Creditor’s objection.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Ignacio Figueroa and Nadia Elizabeth Figueroa


Chapter 13

DISCUSSION



Part of Creditor’s objection relates to its assertion that Claim 5 should not have been disallowed. Creditor raises a variety of arguments in relation to this assertion. The Court notes that if Creditor wishes to bring a motion to reconsider or vacate the order disallowing Claim 5, the instant objection to entry of discharge was not the proper method of bring such a request to the Court. Furthermore, the arguments made by Creditor demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of bankruptcy law. As noted by the Court at the hearing of August 23, 2018, 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9) provides that failure to timely file a claim is grounds for disallowance of the claim. Creditor has not offered any argument which would excuse compliance with that unambiguous statute.


The remainder of Creditor’s objection contains fundamental misstatements of bankruptcy law or relates to state law litigation which does not appear to have any direct relevance to the discharge of Debtors. Furthermore, Creditor’s objection contains no admissible evidence at all, and, as such, does not provide this Court with any evidentiary basis to rule in Creditor’s favor. Finally, as noted by Debtors, Creditor has not actually provided any viable argument, grounded in bankruptcy law, which would allow this Court to sustain the objection.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to OVERRULE the objection.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ignacio Figueroa Represented By

Ghada Helena Philips

11:00 AM

CONT...


Ignacio Figueroa and Nadia Elizabeth Figueroa


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Nadia Elizabeth Figueroa Represented By

Ghada Helena Philips

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13481


Rorye James Mosley, Sr.


Chapter 13


#7.00 Motion to Reconsider (related documents 30 Motion for Relief from Stay - Real Property)


EH   


Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18809


Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


Chapter 13


#8.00 Motion for Authority to Sell or Refinance Real Property under LBR 3015-1 EH   

Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Movant(s):

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11371


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13


#9.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 1) 8893 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, 2) 2006 Ford F-150


MOVANT: WARREN ALAN HALL AND KELLY SUZANNE HALL


EH   


Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

3/14/2019


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion for several reasons. First of all, the motion is internally contradictory regarding the identity of the mortgagee. Pages 1 and 3 of the motion identify U.S. Bank National Association as the relevant secured creditor, while page 4 identifies Nationstar Mortgage LLC as the secured creditor instead.

Furthermore, the Court notes that while both entities were served with the motion, only Nationstar Mortgage LLC was served pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Second, the Court notes that the motion incorrectly identifies the case number of Debtors’ previous case, and falsely states that relief from stay was not granted in the previous case.


Finally, the Court notes that the motion fails to provide sufficiently detailed evidence to meet the "clear and convincing" standard of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C), which is required to overcome the presumption that this case was filed in bad faith.


APPERANCES REQUIRED.


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

11:00 AM

CONT...


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Movant(s):

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10445


Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


Chapter 13


#10.00 CONT Motion for Setting Property Value Collateral Held by Northrop Grumman Federal Credit Union


From: 2/28/19 EH   

Docket 12

Tentative Ruling:

2/28/19

BACKGROUND


On January 18, 2019, Abidan & Cindy Aceves ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2006 Chevrolet Silverado (the "Property"). Northrop Grumman Federal Credit Union ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property. On January 28, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $16,229.83, identifying $10,507 as secured by the Property.


On January 31, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to value the Property. Debtors assert that the Property should be valued at $7,856.


DISCUSSION



One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of

11:00 AM

CONT...


Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


Chapter 13

the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party values of the Dodge and the Ram. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


Chapter 13

Abidan Aceves Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Joint Debtor(s):

Cindy Aceves Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Movant(s):

Abidan Aceves Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Cindy Aceves Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20238


Efrain Padron


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20296


Daniel Lee Crump


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10082


Ann Frances Perez


Chapter 13


#13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ann Frances Perez Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20731


Donnell Leffridge and Marsha Leffridge


Chapter 13


#14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/14/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Donnell Leffridge Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Marsha Leffridge Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20732


Trevor D. Washington and Sandra Washington


Chapter 13


#15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Trevor D. Washington Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Sandra Washington Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20735


Michael Placencia


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Placencia Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20737


Alfredo N Adriano


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alfredo N Adriano Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20759


Elida Soto


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Elida Soto Represented By

William G Cort

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20769


Stephanie Felita Galloway


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephanie Felita Galloway Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20787


Terri Tavona Randolph


Chapter 13


#20.00 Motion to Disallow Claims number 2 Also #21

EH   


Docket 18

Tentative Ruling:

3/14/2019

BACKGROUND:


On December 28, 2019, Terry Randolph ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 3, 2019, CarMax Auto Finance ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $30,730.76 ("Claim 2"). On February 7, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 2. Creditor argues that the collateral for Claim 2, a vehicle, was repossessed.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving

11:00 AM

CONT...


Terri Tavona Randolph


Chapter 13

rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


Here, Debtor has not provided any evidence that the subject vehicle was repossessed. Debtor has provided a bankruptcy credit report which indicates that the claim was identified at $20,284 on November 30, 2018. Given that the evidence submitted by Creditor appears to be a simple text file print-off, with limited information, and given that Creditor has failed to oppose the instant claim objection, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h), the Court is inclined to accept Debtor’s proposed reduction of the claim to $20,284. On the current record, however, the Court has no evidentiary basis to determine that the collateral was repossessed and sold.


TENTATIVE RULING

11:00 AM

CONT...


Terri Tavona Randolph


Chapter 13

The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection to the extent of decreasing Claim 2 to $20,284 and otherwise OVERRULE the objection without prejudice.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Terri Tavona Randolph Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Terri Tavona Randolph Represented By Dana Travis Dana Travis Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20787


Terri Tavona Randolph


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #20 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Terri Tavona Randolph Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20797


Garret A. Chick and Riza C. Chick


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Garret A. Chick Represented By

C Scott Rudibaugh

Joint Debtor(s):

Riza C. Chick Represented By

C Scott Rudibaugh

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20798


Joe Martin Galarza


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joe Martin Galarza Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20839


Raul Rojas Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Raul Rojas Rodriguez Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20845


Gloria Simmons


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gloria Simmons Represented By Bruce A Wilson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20847


Erica Raquel Zavaleta


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Erica Raquel Zavaleta Represented By William J Smyth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20862


Araceli Lorena Gonzalez


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/18/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Araceli Lorena Gonzalez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20873


Alfonso Alvarado, Jr. and Alpha Rubi Alvarado


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alfonso Alvarado Jr. Represented By Michael E Clark

Joint Debtor(s):

Alpha Rubi Alvarado Represented By Michael E Clark

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10001


Jose Diaz and Betty Diaz


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Diaz Represented By

Nima S Vokshori

Joint Debtor(s):

Betty Diaz Represented By

Nima S Vokshori

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10024


James J. Ysais


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

James J. Ysais Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10031


Debbie Willis


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Debbie Willis Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10036


Erlwin Williams


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Erlwin Williams Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10047


Jose Antonio Contreras and Mayra Lorena Contreras


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Antonio Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

Joint Debtor(s):

Mayra Lorena Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10052


Dwayne J. Williams and Dana S. Williams


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Dwayne J. Williams Represented By Michael Jay Berger

Joint Debtor(s):

Dana S. Williams Represented By Michael Jay Berger

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10070


Jaelyn Roylene Young


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #36 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jaelyn Roylene Young Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10070


Jaelyn Roylene Young


Chapter 13


#36.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: JAELYN YOUNG


From: 1/29/19 Also #35

EH   


Docket 16


Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion for failure to comply with the Court’s self- calendaring instructions. Specifically, the motion indicates that it was served on January 19, 2019, which is four days short of the notice required by this Court’s procedures.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jaelyn Roylene Young Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Jaelyn Roylene Young Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10071


John M. Betham and Dana M. Betham


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John M. Betham Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Dana M. Betham Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10072


Gustavo R. Perez


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gustavo R. Perez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20274


Robert Townsend


Chapter 13


#39.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 1 by Claimant Santander Consumer USA Inc..


Also #40 EH   

Docket 25

Tentative Ruling:

3/14/2019

BACKGROUND:

On December 6, 2018, Robert Townsend ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 25, 2019, Santander Consumer USA ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $4,183.41 ("Claim 1"). On January 29, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 1. Debtor argues that Claim 1 is barred by the statute of limitations.

APPLICABLE LAW:

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing

11:00 AM

CONT...

Robert Townsend

Chapter 13

upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;

11:00 AM

CONT...


Robert Townsend


Chapter 13


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 1 is based on a retail installment contract for a vehicle. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim appears to indicate that the last activity on the account was on September 22, 2014. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 1 is unenforceable.


Furthermore, Creditor has not opposed the claim objection and the Court deems failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1) (h).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 1 in its entirety.


APPERANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Robert Townsend


Chapter 13

Robert Townsend Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Movant(s):

Robert Townsend Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20274


Robert Townsend


Chapter 13


#40.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19

Also #39 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Robert Townsend Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13335


Annabelle M. Vigil


Chapter 13


#41.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:13-28594


Jimmy Radu Vianu and Milagros Vianu


Chapter 13


#42.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 90

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jimmy Radu Vianu Represented By Andrew Nguyen

Joint Debtor(s):

Milagros Vianu Represented By Andrew Nguyen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-10929


Christopher John Helme


Chapter 13


#43.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 171


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher John Helme Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-12176


Bonnie Jean Conant


Chapter 13


#44.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency From: 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 98


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bonnie Jean Conant Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-14835


Bennea Cynthia Travis


Chapter 13


#45.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 94


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bennea Cynthia Travis Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-17743


Maria C. Ignacio


Chapter 13


#46.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maria C. Ignacio Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-19148


Esmeralda Caldera


Chapter 13


#47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

Docket 90


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Esmeralda Caldera Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-10379


Nicolas Garcia Ramos and Rosadelia Ramos


Chapter 13


#48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 66

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nicolas Garcia Ramos Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosadelia Ramos Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-12453


Michael Joseph Fodor


Chapter 13


#49.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Joseph Fodor Represented By Michael D Franco

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-12849


Elsy G. Mejia


Chapter 13


#50.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 55


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Joint Debtor(s):


Party Information

Elsy G. Mejia Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18546


Alexis I Barahona


Chapter 13


#51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 63


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alexis I Barahona Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20163


Sandra M. Hankins


Chapter 13


#52.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 71


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sandra M. Hankins Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11131


Bruce Howard Ruggles and Ann Marie Ruggles


Chapter 13


#53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 84


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bruce Howard Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Ann Marie Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11167


Victor Thomas Lawton


Chapter 13


#54.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14650


Brian Eugene Anderson and Gina Marie Anderson


Chapter 13


#55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19

EH       


Docket 33

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brian Eugene Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Gina Marie Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15662


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


#56.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17589


Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


Chapter 13


#57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 69


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-18272


Brenda Barlow


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 60


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Brenda Barlow Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10825


William Thomas Pedrino and Terri Lyn Pedrino


Chapter 13


#59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency EH   

Docket 64

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

William Thomas Pedrino Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Terri Lyn Pedrino Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10940


Ruben L Benitez and Christina M Benitez


Chapter 13


#60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19

EH   


Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ruben L Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Christina M Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12170


Pamela Ann Harris


Chapter 13


#61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Pamela Ann Harris Represented By Halli B Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12992


Charles Henry Sacayan and Catherine Angela McNicholas


Chapter 13


#62.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/17/19

EH   


Docket 62

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 1/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Henry Sacayan Represented By

Ethan Kiwhan Chin

Joint Debtor(s):

Catherine Angela McNicholas Represented By

Ethan Kiwhan Chin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

1:30 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#1.00 CONT Motion for approval of chapter 11 disclosure statement for Debtor's Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan


From: 2/26/19 Also #2

EH   


Docket 155

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Movant(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

1:30 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#2.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18, 1/15/19, 2/26/19


Also #1 EH   

Docket 5

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

11:00 AM

6:18-19594

Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

Chapter 13

#1.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/17/19

EH    


Docket 0


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19729


John R Saxton


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/17/19

EH    


Docket 0


Party Information

Debtor(s):

John R Saxton Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11371


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 1) 8893 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, 2) 2006 Ford F-150


MOVANT: WARREN ALAN HALL AND KELLY SUZANNE HALL


From: 3/14/19 EH   

Docket 15

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Joint Debtor(s):

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Movant(s):

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20296


Daniel Lee Crump


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion for Determining Value of Collateral EH   

Docket 18

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

3/7/19

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13686

David K Johnson and Janet L Johnson

Chapter 13

#5.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 1/17/19

EH   

Docket 33

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David K Johnson Represented By Gary J Holt

Joint Debtor(s):

Janet L Johnson Represented By Gary J Holt

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11636


Amanuel Montrell Bradberry and Katrina Lashall


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 12/20/18, 1/17/19

EH   


Docket 42

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Amanuel Montrell Bradberry Represented By Gary S Saunders

Joint Debtor(s):

Katrina Lashall Bradberry Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Monday, March 25, 2019

Hearing Room

303

3:00 PM

6:18-15841

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

Chapter 11

#1.00 Motion for Order Authorizing Debtor to Enter Into Insurance Premium Financing Agreement with ClassicPlan Premium Financing, Inc. and Granting of Security Interests Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 364(c)

EH   

Docket 205

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

10:00 AM

6:14-20307

Anna M Loconto

Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 703 Melissa Court, Beaumont, CA 92223


MOVANT: CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.


EH   


Docket 71

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/1/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Anna M Loconto Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Represented By Christina J O Madison C Wilson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:15-12092


Edilberto Aguirre-Mendoza and Alba Zacarias-Cebrero


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5516 Walter Street, Riverside, CA 92504


MOVANT: U.S. BANK N.A.


EH   


Docket 60

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edilberto Aguirre-Mendoza Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

Joint Debtor(s):

Alba Zacarias-Cebrero Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank, N.A., successor trustee to Represented By

Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:15-14687


Vernia Jean Mosby


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11582 Holly Oak Dr, Fontana, California 92337


MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


From: 2/26/19 EH   

Docket 111


Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vernia Jean Mosby Represented By Nancy Korompis

Movant(s):

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

Arnold L Graff Joseph C Delmotte Gilbert R Yabes

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Vernia Jean Mosby


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:15-19930


Melinda Kay Allen


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Amended Motion (related document(s): 60 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11139 Laurel Ave., Bloomington CA 92316 . filed by Creditor US Bank Trust National Association as Trustee of IGSC Series II Trust) (Zilberstein, Kristin)


MOVANT: US BANK TRUST NA


From: 1/15/19 EH   

Docket 62


Tentative Ruling:

01/15/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


The Debtor, after seemingly failing to make payments to Movant for several months, now seeks a continuance based on a loan modification request that she has not yet submitted for review. The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for termination of the co-debtor stay based on lack of service on any co-debtor and lack of evidence as to identity of alleged co-debtor. GRANT request under ¶3. DENY request for APO as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Melinda Kay Allen Represented By Steven A Alpert

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Melinda Kay Allen


Chapter 13

US Bank Trust National Association Represented By

Kristin A Zilberstein

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-15672


Daniel Guerrero and Christina Guerrero


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 25679 Motte Circle Romoland, CA 92585


MOVANT: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC


From: 2/26/19 EH   

Docket 49

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Guerrero Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Christina Guerrero Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Movant(s):

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC Represented By

Diana Torres-Brito Alexander G Meissner Asya Landa

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-16909


Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 9617 Surrey Ave, Montclair, California 91763


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 1/29/19, 2/26/19 EH   

Docket 234

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

1/29/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edward Edmund Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Georgia Parrilla Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


Chapter 13

Wells Fargo BAnk, N.A. Represented By April Harriott Sean C Ferry

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:16-20874


Irma Hernandez


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14352 La Brisa Road, Victorville, California 92392


MOVANT: U.S. BANK N.A.


EH   


Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Irma Hernandez Represented By David T Egli

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank N.A., as trustee, on behalf Represented By

Robert P Zahradka

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-13523


Loretta Chavis


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 837 Michigan Ave, Beaumont, CA 92223


MOVANT: SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY INC


From: 11/27/18, 1/29/19, 2/26/19 EH   

Docket 26

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

11/27/2018


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Loretta Chavis Represented By Dan Perry

Movant(s):

Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc., Represented By

Nichole Glowin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-14228


Michelle Meredith


Chapter 7


#9.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 102 Tesori Drive, Palm Desert, California 92211


MOVANT: OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC


From: 11/6/18, 2/5/19 EH   

Docket 128


Tentative Ruling:

11/6/2018


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Movant’s sole legal basis for its request for relief from the automatic stay is that Movant is not protected by an adequate equity cushion. As noted by Trustee in its opposition, however, the equity cushion in this case is above the range required by Mellor and related case law. Therefore, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the motion for Trustee to market and sell the property.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michelle Meredith Pro Se

Movant(s):

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC Represented By Sean C Ferry

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Michelle Meredith


Chapter 7

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Noreen A Madoyan Meghann A Triplett

10:00 AM

6:17-14908


Joan Eleanor Demiany


Chapter 13


#10.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1055 East Via Colusa, Palm Springs, CA 92262


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY From: 9/11/18, 10/30/18, 12/18/18, 2/5/19

EH   


Docket 35

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

10/30/2018


The Movant submitted evidence that the Debtor is delinquent in the amount of

$30,303.59, having missed 10 postconfirmation payments. The parties stipulated toa continuance of the hearing from September 11, 2018 to this date. The primary basis of opposition appears to be regarding the status of a loan modification application.

Parties to update the Court.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joan Eleanor Demiany Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL Represented By

Sean C Ferry

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-15662


Jemill M Humphrey


Chapter 13


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 571 Lassen Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92410


MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 58

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-15987


Frank Heredia and Virginia Heredia


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1943 Rainbow Ridge, Corona, California 92882


MOVANT: OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC


From: 3/5/19 EH   

Docket 39

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from § 1301 co-debtor stay. GRANT relief requested under ¶ 3. GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for APO if not granted.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Heredia Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Joint Debtor(s):

Virginia Heredia Represented By Laleh Ensafi

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Frank Heredia and Virginia Heredia


Chapter 13

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Kelsey X Luu Sean C Ferry

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-16962


Vanessa Moore-Moreland


Chapter 13


#13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 7801 Celeste Avenue, Fontana, California 92336


MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vanessa Moore-Moreland Represented By Kirk A Laron

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank National Association, not Represented By

Nancy L Lee Gilbert R Yabes

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Vanessa Moore-Moreland


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-17402


Thomas Lee Abercrombie and Rebecca Anne Abercrombie


Chapter 13


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2009 Honda Odyssey EX-L Minivan 4D


MOVANT: BALBOA THRIFT & LOAN


EH   


Docket 88


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Thomas Lee Abercrombie Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Joint Debtor(s):

Rebecca Anne Abercrombie Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Movant(s):

Balboa Thrift & Loan Represented By Keith E Herron

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Thomas Lee Abercrombie and Rebecca Anne Abercrombie


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-10939


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Family Law Litigation


MOVANT: JOANA JOHNSON


EH   


Docket 177


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


On February 7, 2018, Vance Johnson ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On July 3, 2018, Debtor’s case was converted to Chapter 7. Debtor’s ex-wife, Joana Johnson ("Movant"), now brings the instant motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to return to family court to collect spousal support and, although the details are somewhat unclear, possibly request the suspension or revocation of Debtor’s medical license. More specifically, the motion requests an order stating the following:


  1. the Non-Debtor Spouse, the California Department of Child Support Services, the Riverside County Department of Child Support Services, the Medical Board of California and any appropriate government agencies are authorized to pursue collection remedies against the earnings of the Debtor from the petition date of February 7, 2018 to present to the fullest extent of the law;

  2. the Non-Debtor Spouse, the California Department of Child Support Services, the Riverside County Department of Child Support Services, the Medical Board of California and any appropriate government agency have the authority to suspend and/or revoke Debtor’s medical license for failure to pay domestic support obligations, including child support and spousal support, to the full extent allowed by law;

  3. that the Non-Debtor spouse may proceed in any governmental entity, including the Superior Court of California, to commence or continue any proceeding relating to child support and/or spousal support over or alleged to be owed by

10:00 AM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson

the Debtor.


Chapter 7


[Dkt. No. 177, Memo. of P’s and A’s, pg. 2-3]. The Court notes that Debtor has not filed any opposition to the instant motion.


In support of her motion, Movant invokes three statutory provisions to argue that the automatic stay is not applicable to her requests for relief. First, Movant cites 11

U.S.C. § 362(b)(2)(D), which provides that the automatic stay does not apply to "the withholding, suspension, or restriction of a driver’s license, a professional or occupational license, or a recreational license under state law." The Court is not aware of any legal provision which would exclude a medical license from the category of professional licenses. As a result, it appears clear that the second request stated above is not stayed by § 362. While Movant has provided brief argumentation as to why the suspension or revocation of Debtor’s medical license may be warranted, this Court’s review of those arguments does not appear appropriate.


Next, Movant cites § 362(b)(2)(C), which states that the automatic stay does not apply "with respect to the withholding of income that is property of the estate or property of the debtor for payment of a domestic support obligation under a judicial or administrative order or a statute." Movant has not really briefed how she believes this provision applies to the instant case, but it does not appear to be directly relevant. See, e.g., 3 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 362.05[2] (16th ed. 2016) ("Section 362(b)(2)(C)

provides an exception to the stay with respect to the withholding of income that is property of the estate or property of the debtor for payment of a domestic support obligation under a judicial or administrative order or a statute. The effect of this amendment is primarily seen in chapter 11 cases filed by an individual debtor and chapter 13 proceedings.").


Finally, Movant cites § 362(b)(2)(B) which provides that the automatic stay does not apply to "the collection of a domestic support obligation from property that is not property of the estate." Due to the operation of § 541, § 362(b)(2)(B) provides a clear avenue for Movant to collect on property, including "earnings from services performed," acquired by Debtor after conversion of the case.


Movant further argues that the earnings from services performed postpetition but preconversion, which were property of the estate prior to conversion due to the

10:00 AM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

operation of 11 U.S.C. § 1115(a), were no longer property of the estate once the case was converted. Movant cites In re Markosian, 506 B.R. 273 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2014) in support of the argument. The Court notes that In re Markosian is the minority position on the issue. For the reasons stated in In Matter of Freeman, 527 B.R. 780 (Bankr.

N.D. Ga. 2015), In re Meier, 528 B.R. 162 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015), and In re Gorniak, 549 B.R. 721 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2016), all of which explicitly rejected In re Markosian and the statutory interpretation contained therein, the Court is inclined to disagree with Movant’s position on this issue. Recognizing the relative novelty of the issue, however, the Movant will be permitted an opportunity to file a supplemental brief on this narrow issue if so desired.


Tentative Ruling:


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion with the modification that Movant is only permitted to pursue collection remedies against property that is not property of the estate. Furthermore, as a matter of law the Court is inclined to find that earnings from services performed postpetition but preconversion are property of the estate.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

Movant(s):

Joana Johnson Represented By Scott Talkov

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

10:00 AM

6:18-11081


Stephen Daniel Payan


Chapter 13


#16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1022 West 7th Street, Corona, CA 92882


MOVANT: PINGORA LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay and otherwise GRANT the motion in accordance with the adequate protection stipulation filed on March 21 [Dkt. No. 48].


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephen Daniel Payan Represented By Paul J Kurtzhall

Movant(s):

Pingora Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-11476


Randy Saulsberry and Kimberly E May


Chapter 13


#17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2011 NISSAN VERSA, VIN # 3N1BC1CP9BL367969


MOVANT: US ACCEPTANCE


EH   


Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). DENY request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown.

Specifically, the motion fails to establish that the collateral is not necessary to an effective reorganization and fails to establish that there is no equity in the collateral. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Randy Saulsberry Represented By David L Nelson

Joint Debtor(s):

Kimberly E May Represented By David L Nelson

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Randy Saulsberry and Kimberly E May


Chapter 13

U.S. ACCEPTANCE, LLC Represented By

Michael D Vanlochem

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-11770


Raymond Burrola and Estela Burrola


Chapter 13


#18.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Nissan Altima, VIN: 1N4AL3AP6DN489947


MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC


From: 3/5/19 EH   

Docket 58

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/15/19

Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY APO as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Raymond Burrola Represented By Elena Steers

Joint Debtor(s):

Estela Burrola Represented By Elena Steers

Movant(s):

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Raymond Burrola and Estela Burrola


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-12099


James David Wilson, IV and Kerri Ann Wilson


Chapter 13


#19.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 18804 Hinton Street, Hesperia, California, 92345-6970


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


From: 3/5/19 EH   

Docket 34

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


The Debtor asserts more payments were made than were accounted for by the Movant. Certainly, a comparison of the Debtor’s Supplement, the Movant’s Declaration and Exhibit 4 indicate that at least one $2,300 payment was made after the Movant received the $2,369.11 payment in October. Much of the confusion is caused by the irregularity of the date the payments are sent out by the Debtors. The due date is the 18th of each month. However, payments are sent by the Debtors alternately at the beginning, middle and end of months. Nevertheless, based on the Debtor’s evidence it appears that when the Motion was filed on February 6, 2019, Debtors would only have been late on their January payment.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James David Wilson IV Represented By Dina Farhat

10:00 AM

CONT...


James David Wilson, IV and Kerri Ann Wilson


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Kerri Ann Wilson Represented By Dina Farhat

Movant(s):

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Christina J O

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-12822


Cynthia Miller


Chapter 13


#20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15036 Daffodil Circle, Fontana, CA 92336


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


EH   


Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Late


Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions, if any.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cynthia Miller Represented By Richard L Barrett

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14053


Wallace Stanton Miles


Chapter 13


#21.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2006 Ford F150, VIN: 1FTRX12W76KB27500


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.


From: 3/5/19 EH   

Docket 36

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/18/19

Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019

Service is Proper Opposition: None


GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY APO request as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Wallace Stanton Miles Represented By

Stuart G Steingraber

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14725


Percylyn Agustin Basa


Chapter 13


#22.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14623 Meadowsweet Dr Eastvale, CA 92880


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR COOPER


From: 1/8/19, 2/5/19, 2/26/19 EH   

Docket 56


Tentative Ruling:

1/8/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Percylyn Agustin Basa Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Angie M Marth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-15022


Rafael Alvarez Martinez


Chapter 7


#23.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 NISSAN Frontier Crew Cab SV Pickup 4D 5 Ft


MOVANT: CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE


EH       


Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rafael Alvarez Martinez Represented By Kevin J Kunde

Movant(s):

Capital One Auto Finance, a division Represented By

Cheryl A Skigin

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16905


Tina M Coca


Chapter 7


#24.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 48 SMX Capital SMX250P Panels, 2 Power One: PVI-6000 Inverters, racking system, mounting hardware, wiring; Size

12.000kW (DC) located at 2345 Cornell Circle, Corona, CA 92881. (12.000 kW Solar Photovoltaic System)


MOVANT: SOLARMAX RENEWABLE ENERGY PROVIDER, INC


EH       


Docket 22


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


The Court notes that Movant appears to have omitted the proof of service from the instant motion. Therefore, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 4001-(1)(c), and the Court is inclined to DENY the motion in its entirety.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tina M Coca Represented By

Emilia N McAfee

Movant(s):

Solarmax Renewable Energy Represented By Alexander G Meissner

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Tina M Coca


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17597


David Meisland


Chapter 13


#25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 26818 Montseratt Court, Murrieta, California 92563


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


EH   


Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Meisland Represented By Nima S Vokshori

Movant(s):

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL Represented By

Sean C Ferry

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-18413


Joseph A Hamburger and Kara L Hamburger


Chapter 13


#26.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota Tacoma


MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 36

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph A Hamburger Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Kara L Hamburger Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

Austin P Nagel

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-18827


Myloan Thi Truong


Chapter 7


#27.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Nissan Rogue, VIN: KNMAT2MT2HP603644


MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE LLC


EH   


Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Myloan Thi Truong Pro Se

Movant(s):

TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith Jennifer H Wang

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Myloan Thi Truong


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19281


Michael Talbot


Chapter 7


#28.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 989 S Calle Paul, Palm Springs, California 92264


MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC


EH   


Docket 31


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Talbot Represented By Ryan A. Stubbe

Movant(s):

PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By Robert P Zahradka

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19376


Matthew J Whyte and Laura M Whyte


Chapter 13


#29.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 74747 King Fisher Circle, Palm Desert, California 92260


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


From: 2/26/19 EH   

Docket 28

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

2/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Regarding Movant’s argument that the automatic stay has terminated in the instant case, Movant’s assertion is incorrect because 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3) only applies when a previous case has been dismissed. Here, Debtors’ only previous case in the year prior to the petition date of the instant case resulted in a discharge. Therefore, the Court will DENY the request for relief under ¶ 14.


Regarding Movant’s argument that the case was filed in bad faith due to previous bankruptcy filings, the Court notes that Debtors have two previous filings, both Chapter 7 cases which resulted in discharge. The instant case is a Chapter 13 proceeding, making this case what is commonly referred to as a Chapter 20 case. It has been uniformly established that the filing of a Chapter 13 case shortly after receiving a Chapter 7 discharge does not constitute bad faith. Therefore, the Court will DENY the request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(4).


Regarding the remainder of Movant’s requests, the parties are to apprise the Court regarding the status of the arrears and adequate protection discussions, if any.

10:00 AM

CONT...


Matthew J Whyte and Laura M Whyte


Chapter 13


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Matthew J Whyte Represented By William J Howell

Joint Debtor(s):

Laura M Whyte Represented By William J Howell

Movant(s):

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Represented By Gilbert R Yabes Yadira P Delgado

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19842


Jody L Weikal and Kevin Turner


Chapter 7


#30.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1940 Fan Palm Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262


MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to §§ 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jody L Weikal Represented By Curtis A Cavalletto

Joint Debtor(s):

Kevin Turner Represented By

Curtis A Cavalletto

Movant(s):

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

Nancy L Lee

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Jody L Weikal and Kevin Turner


Chapter 7

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20410


Pamela M Bradford


Chapter 13


#31.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Confirming Termination of Stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(j) or That No Stay is in Effect under 11 U.S.C.

362(c)(4)(A)(ii) 5744 Alexandria Ave., Corona, CA .


MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOC. AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST


EH   


Docket 19

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pamela M Bradford Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank National Association as Represented By

Diane Weifenbach

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10236


Julio Alejandro Rodriguez-Flock


Chapter 7


#32.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F8 2FA1 85099


MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julio Alejandro Rodriguez-Flock Represented By

Edgar P Lombera

Movant(s):

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

Vincent V Frounjian

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Julio Alejandro Rodriguez-Flock


Chapter 7

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10297


Denise Ann Vargas


Chapter 7


#33.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 29045 Avocado Way, Lake Elsinore, California 92530


MOVANT: THE COLEMAN FAMILY TRUST DATED AUGUST 18, 1998


EH   


Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Denise Ann Vargas Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

The Coleman Family Trust dated Represented By

Julian K Bach

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10571


Edwin Elias Urbina


Chapter 7


#34.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: JHMC R6F7 7HC0 13878


MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edwin Elias Urbina Represented By Gary S Saunders

Movant(s):

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

Vincent V Frounjian

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Edwin Elias Urbina


Chapter 7

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10648


Margaret E Wray and Gregory G Wray


Chapter 7


#35.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 40681 Via Diamante, Murrieta, CA 92562


MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Margaret E Wray Represented By Tom A Moore

Joint Debtor(s):

Gregory G Wray Represented By Tom A Moore

Movant(s):

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as Represented By

Erin M McCartney

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Margaret E Wray and Gregory G Wray


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10990


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13


#36.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 35816 Country Ridge Road, Yucaipa, CA 92399 and as to All other Creditors.


MOVANT: DAVID AND MARY CELINE SANDOVAL


From: 3/5/19 EH   

Docket 20

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

03/05/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


As a threshold matter, the Debtors indicated that the Motion was served on regular notice. It was not. The Motion was filed on February 13, 2019. Regular notice on a Motion filed on that date would not have run until March 6, 2019. The opposition was then filed on February 25, 2019, by Secured Creditor Wilmington Trust ("Creditor").


Creditor asserts that the Debtors’ prior case was dismissed due to the Debtors’ inability to perform as to the terms of the confirmed plan. The dismissal was precipitated by Wilmington Trust’s notification to the Trustee that the Debtors were not current on their post-petition payments which eventually formed the basis for the dismissal of the prior case.


The presumption that the case was not filed in good faith arises due to the failure to perform the terms of the confirmed plan in their prior case. To overcome the presumption, the Debtors assert they now have sufficient income to fund a feasible plan because (1) Debtor Wife has experienced an increase in income of $700 per month, (2) Debtor Wife’s parents are contributing $1,200 per month to the Debtors;

10:00 AM

CONT...


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13

(3) Debtors are no longer supporting their children because they have now graduated from college. The Motion is supported only by the declaration of the Debtor.


Creditor in its opposition asserts that the statements regarding the Debtors’ family contributions are unsupported by any evidence and the Court agrees. Section 362(c)(3) explicitly requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the case was not filed in good faith. In reply, the Debtors have provided a declaration from the Debtors’ family members asserting that they will contribute $1,200 monthly for 60 months towards the Debtors’ plan. The Declaration further indicates that the Robert and Ann Sroufe are currently residing with the Debtors.


Based on the supplemental evidence, the Court is inclined to find that the Debtors have sufficiently improved their financial condition to warrant a finding that by clear and convincing evidence the presumption under § 362(c)(3) has been overcome.

However, the Court believes a stay-current APO is warranted under the circumstances.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Joint Debtor(s):

Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Movant(s):

David Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

CONT...


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13

10:00 AM

6:19-11079


Juan Carlos Cardenas and Marisol Isabel Cardenas


Chapter 7


#37.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC V1F3 0JA0 08425


MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

  1. and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Juan Carlos Cardenas Represented By Roland D Tweed

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Marisol Isabel Cardenas Represented By Roland D Tweed

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Juan Carlos Cardenas and Marisol Isabel Cardenas


    Chapter 7

    AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

    Vincent V Frounjian

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11385


    Jeffrey Pierce


    Chapter 13


    #38.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 887 River Rd. #309, Corona, CA 92880


    MOVANT: STEADFAST RIVER RUN L.P.


    EH   


    Docket 8

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/12/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jeffrey Pierce Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Steadfast River Run L.P. Represented By Scott Andrews

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11431


    Olivia Susana Norris


    Chapter 13


    #39.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate


    MOVANT: OLIVIA SUSANA NORRIS


    EH   


    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/26/2019


    The instant motion was not served on the secured creditor pursuant to FED. R. BANKR.

    P. Rule 7004, which is required pursuant to Judge Houle’s procedures. Furthermore, the secured creditor is not named on the caption page, or on section (3)(a) of the motion. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Olivia Susana Norris Represented By Gary S Saunders

    Movant(s):

    Olivia Susana Norris Represented By Gary S Saunders

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11586


    Jerome D Williams


    Chapter 13


    #40.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


    MOVANT: JEROME D WILLIAMS


    EH   


    Docket 10


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/26/2019


    The Court, having reviewed the motion, is inclined to DENY the motion for lack of cause shown. The Court notes that the motion does not contain the level of detail and specificity required to meet the "clear and convincing" necessary to rebut the presumption of bad faith contained in 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C). Specifically, the motion does not provide the Court with information which would enable the Court to assess the relevant changes in Debtor’s financial situation.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED,

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jerome D Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Movant(s):

    Jerome D Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11792


    Clifford Leon Parks


    Chapter 13


    #41.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property located at 3980 Polk St., Unit B, Riverside, CA 92505


    MOVANT: CLIFFORD LEON PARKS


    EH   


    Docket 14


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/26/2019


    The Court having reviewed the motion, notice appearing proper and good cause appearing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to all creditors.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Clifford Leon Parks Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Clifford Leon Parks Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11825


    Peggy Thiel


    Chapter 7


    #42.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 8 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 33410 Biltmore Drive, Temecula, CA 92592


    MOVANT: LUIS O SOTO AND MARCIA L. SOTO


    EH   


    Docket 11


    Tentative Ruling:

    3/26/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). DENY requests for confirmation that stay is not in effect because Movants have not demonstrated that either § 362(b)(22) or § 362(b)(23) is applicable to the instant situation. DENY request for annulment of automatic stay because motion does not cite any grounds in support of the request. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay.

    DENY requests under ¶¶ 7, 9, 10, and 11 for lack of cause shown. DENY alternative request under ¶ 12 as moot.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Peggy Thiel Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Marcia L Soto Represented By Samuel J St Romain

    Luis O Soto Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Peggy Thiel


    Samuel J St Romain


    Chapter 7

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11713


    Roger Adams


    Chapter 7


    #42.10 Amended Motion (related document(s): 7 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 3207 Crystal Lake Court, Ontario, CA . filed by Interested Party Plan River Investments LLC)


    MOVANT: PLAN RIVER INVESTMENT LLC


    EH   


    Docket 10

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/22/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Roger Adams Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-13481


    Rorye James Mosley, Sr.


    Chapter 13


    #43.00 CONT Order To Show Cause Why Brian Soo-Hoo Should Not Be Sanctioned In The Amount Of $1,000


    From: 1/29/19 EH   

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01112 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Source Medical Billing &


    #44.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Source Medical Billing & Collection, Inc, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer))


    From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 1/8/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 3/25/19

    Tentative Ruling:

  2. Requiring Status Report EH   

Docket 5


Tentative Ruling:


Debtor(s):


Party Information

G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

11:00 AM

6:14-16813


M. A. Tabor


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01128 Frealy v. Trotochau et al


#1.00 CONT Application and Order for Appearance and Examination From: 12/5/18, 12/11/18, 12/20/18, 2/27/19

EH       


Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

M. A. Tabor Represented By

Judith Runyon

Defendant(s):

Robin Sherrie Trotochau Pro Se

Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc. Represented By

Leib M Lerner

Movant(s):

Todd A. Frealy Represented By Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith

Plaintiff(s):

Todd A. Frealy Represented By Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


M. A. Tabor


Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith


Chapter 7

11:00 AM

6:18-20477


Connie Gutierrez


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01028 Whitmore v. Gutierrez et al


#2.00 CONT Order To Show Cause RE: [2] Motion for a temporary restraining order without notice, and (2) an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued


From: 2/27/19 EH   

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Connie Gutierrez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Defendant(s):

Daniel Gutierrez Represented By Lane K Bogard

Toby Gutierrez Pro Se

Movant(s):

Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Julie Philippi

Plaintiff(s):

Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Julie Philippi

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Connie Gutierrez


Julie Philippi


Chapter 7

11:00 AM

6:18-20477


Connie Gutierrez


Chapter 7


#3.00 Motion to Dismiss Debtor's Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case Pursuant to 11 USC 707(A)


EH       


Docket 14

Tentative Ruling:

3/27/2019

BACKGROUND

On December 14, 2018, Connie Gutierrez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On February 5, 2019, Trustee filed a complaint to avoid a fraudulent transfer. The defendants in the adversary proceeding are Daniel Gutierrez ("Daniel") and Toby Gutierrez ("Toby"), Debtor’s sons, who are apparently estranged from each other. On February 6, 2019, the Court entered a temporary restraining order (the "TRO"), and set a hearing on a preliminary injunction. The TRO was issued to prohibit Daniel and Toby from transferring certain proceeds of the sale of real property, which they received from Debtor in 2017.

On February 20, 2019, Daniel filed a motion to dismiss the main bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(A). Daniel’s primary argument in support of dismissal is that the instant bankruptcy case was filed by Toby, and that Toby lacked the authority to file the case. Daniel also briefly argues that Debtor has not adequately performed her duties as a debtor. On March 13, 2019, Trustee filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss. In support of the opposition, Trustee argues that: (1) Daniel lacks standing to bring the instant motion; (2) Toby had authority to file the bankruptcy, or, alternatively, that the filing was subsequently ratified; (3) dismissal would be prejudicial to creditors; and (4) dismissal would be prejudicial to Debtor.

11:00 AM

CONT...

Connie Gutierrez

Chapter 7

Of additional note is that Debtor filed a motion to appoint Toby as her next friend on December 31, 2018. No action has been taken on the motion, however, and the motion appears to be procedurally improper.

DISCUSSION


  1. PREJUDICE TO CREDITORS/DEBTOR


    Trustee has not cited to any legal provision or case law in support of its contention that the Court should consider prejudice to creditors in this situation. While prejudice to creditors is certainly relevant in the context of some motions to dismiss, the factor is wholly inappropriate when the validity of the bankruptcy filing itself is at issue. In the absence of any legal support for this proposition, the Court is inclined to summarily reject the argument.


    Similarly, the Court finds it inappropriate to separately analyze whether dismissal of the bankruptcy would be prejudicial to Debtor, at least on the record before the Court. Regardless of whether the prosecution of the bankruptcy case would be beneficial to Debtor, it is Debtor, or Debtor’s appropriate representative, who is entitled to make that determination, not Trustee. If a determination is ultimately made that it is in the best interests of Debtor to continue with the case, Debtor may ratify the instant filing, as more fully stated below.


  2. STANDING


    An additional argument made by Trustee in opposition to the motion to dismiss is that Daniel lacks standing to bring the motion. Trustee appropriately cites the recitation of constitutional standing contained in In re Sherman, 493 F.3d 948, 970 (9th Cir. 2007) for the legal standard. As stated in In re Sherman, "[t]o establish standing under Article III, a party must demonstrate that (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Connie Gutierrez


    Chapter 7

    hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."


    In support of its contention that Daniel lacks standing to bring the instant motion, Trustee includes a footnote, which states: "Daniel is a party in interest in the Adversary Case but that does not make him a party in interest in this underlying chapter 7 case." The Court is not convinced that this is a priori true. The Sherman standard outlined above requires that the injury be "fairly traceable." Here, the injury which would be suffered by Daniel as a defendant in the adversary proceeding seems traceable to the maintenance of the main bankruptcy case, and dismissal of the main bankruptcy case would ultimately result in dismissal of the adversary proceeding.

    While neither party has provided any case law to guide the Court’s analysis of standing in the instant situation, the "fairly traceable" standard would seem to impart standing to Daniel. For example, in In re Alvarado, 496 B.R. 200, 206 (N.D. Cal.

    2013), the court ruled that an attorney had independent standing to challenge the dismissal of the bankruptcy case, when that dismissal resulted in an order requiring the disgorgement of attorney fees. In that case, the attorney was not a party in interest in the bankruptcy proceeding, yet the dismissal of the case caused an injury to the attorney, satisfying the standards for standing. See also In re Azam, 2014 WL 12689267 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (Appellee had standing to move for dismissal because "Appellee had a pecuniary interest and practical stake in the bankruptcy case, at least because it is the current plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action against Appellant and is a defendant in an adversary proceeding filed by Appellant.") (emphasis added). Put another way, "standing in bankruptcy is determined under the ‘person aggrieved’ test, under which only one who is directly and adversely affected pecuniarily has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court’s order." In re Aheong, 276 B.R. 233, 238 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). In any event, the Court notes Daniel has filed a proof of claim.


    Nevertheless, it is unclear whether it is necessary for the Court to determine that Daniel has standing to bring the instant motion because it is clear that the same issue could be raised by the Court, sua sponte, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). See, e.g., In re Hurt, 234 B.R. 1, 2 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999) ("[T]he Court, sua sponte, issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to provide evidence that Ms. O’Neil is the debtor’s attorney in fact and that Ms. O’Neil has been given specific authority to file a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Ms. Hurt and to take action incident to the bankruptcy filing."); see also, In re Brown, 163 B.R. 596, 597

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Connie Gutierrez


    Chapter 7

    (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1993) ("The validity of a petition is a threshold question in determining a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over a case.").


    For the reasons stated above, the Court is inclined to find that Daniel has standing to bring the instant motion. Alternatively, Trustee may be afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief containing appropriate legal support for its contention that Daniel lacks standing to bring the instant motion. If the latter option is preferred, however, the Court will also enter an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as a legal nullity, to be heard simultaneously with a continued hearing.


  3. RATIFICATION OF FILING


The primary argument raised by Trustee is that: "[t]he Motion should be denied because Toby had the authority to file the petition, Debtor has ratified the filing by assisting in the filing, and any other procedural deficiencies can be cured through the appointment of a next friend or guardian ad litem." [Dkt. No. 21, pg 4, lines 3-5].

These are three distinct arguments which will be addressed separately.


The first contention, that Toby had authority to file the petition, while possibly true in a technical sense, cannot render the instant filing valid because, as conceded by Trustee, "even if the Court finds the power of attorney gave Toby the authority to commence this case, he did not sign in his representative capacity." [Dkt. No. 21, pg. 4, lines 11-12].


The second contention, that Debtor subsequently ratified the filing, lacks affirmative evidence in the record. Nevertheless, ratification typically does not require an affirmative act. See, e.g., Hager v. Gibson, 108 F.3d 35 (4th Cir. 1997); In re Ballard, 1987 WL 191320 *1 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1987) ("debtor may be estopped from denying validity of petition once he has knowingly accepted the benefits"); see also Rakestraw

  1. Rodriguez, 8 Cal.3d 67, 73 (Cal. 1972) ("A purported agent’s act may be adopted expressly or it may be adopted by implication based on conduct of the purported principal from which an intention to consent to or adopt the act may be fairly

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Connie Gutierrez


    Chapter 7

    inferred."). The record submitted by Trustee is, however, simply inadequate to support a finding of ratification at the present time.


    The ratification issues becomes even more problematic because of the implication that Debtor is sufficiently incompetent to justify the appointment of a next friend. FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 1004.1 allows "a representative, including a general guardian, committee, conservator, or similar fiduciary," to file a voluntary petition on behalf of an incompetent person.

    The rule further provides that:

    [a]n infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may file a voluntary petition by next friend or guardian ad litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person who is a debtor and is not otherwise represented or shall make any other order to protect the infant or incompetent debtor.


    Rule 1004.1 is patterned after FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 17(c), which applies to adversary proceedings pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7017. That rule provides that an incompetent person may sue "by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem" if the incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative, and provides that "[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action."


    Cases interpreting Rule 17(c) look to the law of the state in which the subject is domiciled and follow the state's incompetency laws." In re Burchell, 2014 WL 1304635, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2014)(internal citations omitted). This Court looks to the California Probate Code’s § 811 which outlines the possible bases for a determination that a person is of unsound mind or lacks capacity to make a decision or do a certain act, including for example, incapacity to contract or to execute wills or trusts.


    The motion for appointment of a next friend, however, is not before the Court, and there is no evidence as to Debtor’s incompetence. There is also no evidence before the Court that Debtor has affirmatively ratified the filing, or knowingly accepted the benefits of the bankruptcy.


    TENTATIVE RULING

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Connie Gutierrez


    Chapter 7


    Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, the Court is inclined to determine that the instant filing is a legal nullity, and GRANT the motion to dismiss the case. The Court will issue an OSC as to sanctions against Debtor’s attorney in connection with the filing of the petition.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Connie Gutierrez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Movant(s):

    Daniel Gutierrez Represented By Lane K Bogard

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

    11:00 AM

    6:18-16908


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    #4.00 CONT Motion To Compel Payment Of Administrative Rent Or Immediate Rejection Of Lease And Related Relief

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 11/27/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19 Also #5

    EH   


    Docket 194

    Tentative Ruling:

    2/26/19

    BACKGROUND

    On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On November 2, 2018, The H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Berger Foundation") filed its motion to compel payment of administrative rent or immediate rejection of lease and related relief. On November 13, 2018, Debtor filed its opposition.

    The subject of the motion is a lease dated August 15, 2008, for certain nonresidential real property located in Palm Desert, California. According to Berger Foundation, "[p] ursuant to the terms of lease, should the Debtor continue to occupy the premises after August 14, 2018, the lease obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month," [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 2] a doubling of the contractual monthly rental obligation. Berger Foundation requests: (1) that Debtor be compelled to cure the default on the lease or surrender the premises; and (2) allowance of an administrative expense claim

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

    Chapter 11

    in the amount of $3,040.55 per day.


    Debtor’s opposition argued that: (1) the lease cannot be assumed or rejected because the lease expired the day before the petition date; and (2) because the lease expired prepetition, the legal basis for the requested administrative expense claim is invalid.


    On November 27, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the matter, and continue the hearing for three weeks for supplemental briefing. On December 18, 2018, the Court posted a tentative ruling prior to the continued hearing, indicating that it was inclined to hold that the lease terminated pre-petition, and, therefore, the lease was not an executory contract. The Court continued the matter again, allowing the parties the opportunity to further brief the matter, and to enable the parties to supplement the record to afford the Court the opportunity to assess Berger Foundation’s request for administrative rent.


    On January 18, 2019, Berger Foundation filed a supplement. On February 1, 2019, Debtor filed a response. Because Berger Foundation has not presented any new argument relating to 11 U.S.C. § 365, the Court is not inclined to modify its tentative, which is outlined in the first portion of the discussion section. Instead, the Court will address the parties’ arguments relating to 11 U.S.C. § 503.


    DISCUSSION



    I. 11 U.S.C. § 365


    The critical legal question at issue is whether the operative lease expired prepetition. Berger Foundation relies on 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) as the basis for both its requests, and that provision states:

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    The trustee shall timely perform all the obligations of the debtor, except those specified in section 365(b)(2), arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, until such lease is assumed or rejected, notwithstanding section 503(b)(1) of this title. The court may extend, for cause, the time for performance of any such obligation that arises within 60 days after the date of the order for relief, but the time for performance shall not be extended beyond such 60-day period. This subsection shall not be deemed to affect the trustee’s obligations under the provisions of subsection (b) or (f) of the section. Acceptance of any such performance does not constitute waiver or relinquishment of the lessor’s rights under such lease or under this title.


    (emphasis added).


    As a general rule, an expired lease is no longer executory, and, therefore, is no longer assumable, if the lease expired prepetition. See, e.g., In re Acorn Invs., 8 B.R. 506, 509-10 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1981). Therefore, the Court must determine whether the lease at issue expired prepetition. See Robinson v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 54 F.3d 316, 320 (7th Cir. 1995) ("the federal law allowing ‘unexpired’ leases to be assumed calls for a determination whether a lease has ended under state law."). Here, Debtor argues that the lease expired pre-petition, resulting in a holdover tenancy, in which no privity of contract exists, while Berger Foundation argues that the lease became a month to month tenancy and, therefore, was not expired. While the parties appear to be agree on the operative legal standard, the parties disagree regarding how that standard applies to the facts here


    Both parties refer to CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, which states:


    If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

    exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year.


    Chapter 11



    As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it appears the above legal provision should not actually be applicable to the instant situation. Specifically, CAL. CIV. CODE

    § 1940(a), (c) states the following:


    1. Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter shall apply to all persons who hire dwelling units located within this state included tenants, boarders, lodgers, and others, however denominated.


      (c) "Dwelling unit" means a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household.


      Here, the lease at issue was a commercial lease which would remove the lease from the purview of § 1945 based upon the plain language of § 1940. Nevertheless, the Court notes that there is ample caselaw, some of which is cited by the parties, in which California courts have applied § 1945 to commercial property. Although it is not clear to this Court why that section is inapplicable to the instant situation, the Court will defer to the state law courts on this issue of state law.


      Ultimately, the argument of Berger Foundation boils down to the following:


      In this case, after the expiration of the Lease terms (August 14, 2018), Debtor continued to occupy the Premises. Berger continued to accept the Debtor as a tenant and took no action to terminate the Debtor’s leasehold interest in the Premises. To the contrary, as this Court’s record reflects, from the outset, Berger has been focusing on receiving rent payments and, in fact, received post-petition payments of not less than $15,000 as of the date of this Reply.

      Clearly, pursuant to Civil Code § 1945 and applicable California authority, the

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

      Lease converted to a month-to-month tenancy after August 14, 2018.


      Chapter 11



      [Dkt. No. 278, pg. 3]. Debtor’s argument, on the other hand, appears to be that Berger Foundation’s actions in this case simply do not reflect clear consent to Debtor’s continued possession of the premises.


      First, there appears to be a timing issue which has not been identified by the parties. The operative lease expired, by its own terms, on August 14, 2018. The instant bankruptcy was filed on August 15, 2018. Therefore, assuming, arguendo, that rent was paid and accepted in a matter which would trigger the statutory presumption in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, such event would have occurred after the petition date. City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) ("The statute provides the landlord’s consent to the holding over is implied if he accepts rent from the tenant after the expiration of the lease. This consent to the holding over must be established before the statutory presumption of the same terms becomes effective.") (emphasis added). Therefore, the lease at issue would have been, as of the petition date, expired and not assumable. Quite simply, on the record before the Court, it is implausible that Berger Foundation could have undertaken any action in the fraction of the day before the instant bankruptcy filing which would have indicated consent to the creation of a month-to-month tenancy.


      Furthermore, outside of the bankruptcy law issues raised above, Berger Foundation’s position does not seem to be compatible with state law. Quite simply, the presumptions outlined in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 are analogous to contractual principles in common law. By remaining in possession of the property, and tendering a rental payment, a holdover tenant is making an offer; by accepting such tender, the landlord manifests his assent to such offer. Berger Foundation seems to be positing that the payment of any rent whatsoever, even a single dollar, subsequently accepted by the landlord, results in the extension of the lease terms on the original contractual terms.


      Berger Foundation’s argument, however, is inconsistent with fundamental contractual principles, for, in the case of a minimal rental payment, it cannot be said that either party has made an offer, accepted by the other party, to renew the original lease terms. At best, the landlord’s implied acquiescence may be construed as an offer, yet the tenant’s tender of a minimal rental payment can only be interpreted as a counter-offer,

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11

      since such a tender would be materially inconsistent with the terms of the offer. If the landlord accepts this reduced tender, the terms agreed upon must be construed as those set forth in the counter-offer, a principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076:


      The person to whom a tender is made must, at the time, specify any objection he may have to the money, instrument, or property, or he must be deemed to have waived it; and if the objection be to the amount of money, the terms of the instrument, or the amount or kind of property, he must specify the amount, terms, or kind which he requires, or be precluded from objecting afterwards.


      See also Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940) ("It is now settled by these cases that where the tenant tenders, and the landlord accepts, as full payment of the rent, a less monthly rental than that reserved in the lease, he cannot later recover the unpaid balance of the rent reserved.")


      While the above principle, a principle of estoppel, is properly subject to the Court’s consideration of equities, such consideration would simply not change the fact that a reduced monthly rental payment cannot be considered acquiescence to a renewal of the original contractual terms. In the absence of such mutual agreement to be bound to the original terms, there simply cannot be contractual privity.


      Finally, the Court notes that the operation of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 is to create a rebuttable presumption that the least has been extended. Assuming, arguendo, that the bankruptcy and contract law issues noted above were not present, it appears probable that such a presumption would be rebutted in the instant case. The Court is not aware of any action taken by Debtor that would support a conclusion that Debtor intended to renew the lease on the original terms, and Berger Foundation has made repeated statements which would be incompatible with the presumption in § 1945. For instance, in the instant motion Berger Foundation made the following statements, which are implicitly and explicitly more compatible with a holdover tenancy than a month-to-month tenancy:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11

      -"Since the filing of this case, the Debtor has continued, and continues, to occupy the Premises, yet has failed to pay the rental obligation due and owing." [Dkt. No 194, pg. 2 and 4]


      -"Based on the fact that the Debtor remained as a holdover tenant, and pursuant to the terms of the Lease, the rental obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 4 and 10] (emphasis added).


      -"Here, the Debtor has made no payments while continuing to occupy the Premises." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 6].


      For the reasons outlined above, the Court concludes that the lease in question was expired as of the petition date because nothing in the record indicates that Berger Foundation provided consent to continued possession of the premises in the less than one-day period between the expiration of the lease and the instant bankruptcy filing. To the extent that Berger Foundation argues that postpetition acts retroactively revived the original lease terms, such retroactive revival would seem to be incompatible with City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

      Furthermore, because Debtor did not remotely act in accordance with the original lease terms, it cannot be said that Debtor actions constituted a renewal of those terms; if any lease was entered into postpetition, it must have been on substantially different terms, which would require notice and a hearing. Additionally, even if the statutory presumption of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 were applicable in the instant situation, the Court concludes that such presumption would likely be rebutted based on the fact that Debtor did not act in accordance with the original terms, and based on Berger Foundation’s explicit characterization of Debtor as a holdover tenant.


      II. 11 U.S.C. § 503


      11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) states:


    2. After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including –

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11

      (1)(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate including –


      "An administrative rent claim under this standard is value ‘under an objective worth standard that measures the fair and reasonable value of the lease.’" In re Pac.-Atl.

      Trading Co., 27 F.3d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Dant & Russell, Inc., 853 F.2d 700, 707 (9th Cir. 1988)). "The rent reserved in the lease is presumptive evidence of fair and reasonable value, but the presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating that the reasonable worth of the lease differs from the contract rate." In re Thompson, 788 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1986). "Where the debtor or trustee only uses a portion of the lease property, however, he must pay an administrative expense only for that portion of the property." Id. at 562. The Court continued the previous hearing for the parties to provide evidence and argument regarding the objective value of the portion of the leased property utilized by Debtor.


      Debtor first, very briefly, argues that the parties have implicitly agreed to a rental rate of $5,000 per month, and that that amount should be used in calculating Berger Foundation’s administrative claim. Debtor appears to base this argument on the Court’s tentative ruling for the hearing of December 18, 2018; specifically, Debtor refers to Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940). The Court rejects Debtor’s approach. The relevant language in the Court’s tentative ruling is used to illustrate that, in the context of a holdover tenancy, the original contractual terms do not necessarily control when the parties have acted in a manner which is materially inconsistent with those terms. Importantly, here, the $5,000 payment discussed by Debtor is not necessarily a "rental" payment, but is more accurately characterized as an "adequate protection" payment. Adequate protection payments may be in amounts substantially different than the actual amount due – for instant, an adequate protection payment may be interest only, or may attempt to estimate the depreciation of the estate, in order to protect the secured creditor’s interest.

      Furthermore, it would not be equitable to apply the estoppel principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076 in the context of bankruptcy, where the lender does have the ability to reject the payment and, without constraint, exercise its traditional state law rights.


      Debtor’s primary argument is that the contract rate of the lease is an "inappropriate measure" of the objective worth of the lease because Debtor did not use the entirety of the leased premises. Specifically, Debtor argues that it only utilized 4,000 square feet

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11

      of the leased premises. Berger Foundation, on the other hand, makes two arguments in response: (1) that the entirety of the premises were necessary for Debtor to maintain its CMS license; and (2) that Debtor actually utilized the majority of the premises. In support of its argument, Debtor has provided declarations attesting that Debtor only used 4,000 square feet, and that, after moving into a smaller space, Debtor did not lose any funding, or, presumably, its license. Berger Foundation has provided a declaration which includes the vague statement that Debtor "continued to utilize the majority of the Premises."


      The record provided to the Court is, unfortunately, unclear and incapable of providing the necessary evidentiary framework for a precise mathematical calculation. First, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether Debtor used only 4,000 square feet.

      Second, and more importantly, the evidence seems to suggest, but is still unclear, that the Debtor required all the space to maintain its license (or at least thought it had to). Debtor’s response states the following: "Although it is true the Debtor was concerned it might lose funding if it lost its physical address in Palm Desert by hastily vacating the Premises, a belief that the Debtor needed a physical address for funding does not trump the Ninth Circuit requirement that the Debtor actually use the entirety of the Premises. In fact, Berger does not cite to any authority for this proposition." [Dkt. No. 323, pg. 10, lines 6-10].


      On the record before it, the Court concludes Debtor has failed to demonstrate it did not use the entirety of the premises. More specifically, the Court concludes that there are a variety of ways that a space can be "used," and that that term is not limited to physical occupancy by the tenant. While, again, the record before the Court is less than clear, it appears that Debtor represented that it had control over, and occupancy of, the entirety of the premises for purposes of its licensing and funding. As a result, it appears Debtor continued to "use" the leased premises for some purposes, even if such use did not necessarily amount to physical use of the entirety of the premises for normal business operations. Because Debtor has not established that the use of the full premises was not reasonably necessary to preserve the estate, the Court rejects Debtor’s attempt to reduce the space used to 4,000 square foot. As a result, the Court concludes that Debtor has not rebutted the presumption that the contract rate represents the reasonable value of the leased premises used.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11

      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of allowing Berger Foundation an administrative claim in the amount of $172,543.53, less amounts received, and DENY the remainder of the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

      David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

      Movant(s):

      The H. N. and Frances C. Berger Represented By

      David B Golubchik

      11:00 AM

      6:18-16908


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11


      #5.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/13/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19


      Also #4 EH   

      Docket 4


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

      David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

      11:00 AM

      6:17-18617


      Christy Carmen Hammond


      Chapter 7


      #6.00 Application to Employ Century 21-Lois Lauer Realty as Real Estate Broker EH   

      Docket 30

      Tentative Ruling:

      3/27/2019

      BACKGROUND


      On October 16, 2017, Christy Hammond ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On January 29, 2018, Debtor received her discharge. On April 23, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of assets.


      On February 4, 2019, Trustee filed an application to employ real estate broker to market certain real property located at 5918 Ridgegate Dr., Chino Hills, CA 91709 (the "Property"). On February 18, 2019, Debtor filed her opposition to the application. Debtor’s opposition raises four arguments: (1) that there is no equity in the Property;

      1. broker is charging excessive commission fee; (3) broker is not a qualified broker but is rather and agent; and (4) only the Debtor’s half joint interest is property of the estate. On March 20, 2019, Trustee filed its reply.


        DISCUSSION



        As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Debtor’s opposition contains no admissible evidence. The Court will reject the arguments raised in the opposition for

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Christy Carmen Hammond


        Chapter 7

        the following reasons:


        1. While Debtor argues that Trustee’s sales price is unreasonably high, Debtor has not provided any persuasive evidence to support that assertion. The only evidence referenced by Debtor, Debtor’s statement of the value of the Property in the schedules, is inadequate to defeat an application to employ a real estate broker.


        2. Debtor has not provided any admissible evidence in support of her contention that the proposed broker’s fees are unreasonably high. Regardless, the Court retains jurisdiction to review the proposed compensation of the broker at the appropriate time.


        3. Debtor has not provided any admissible evidence in support of her contention that the proposed broker is not a qualified broker.


        4. Finally, Debtor’s argument that only a fractional interest in the Property is property of the estate, if true, is inadequate to defeat an application to employ real estate broker. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Property is anything but community property, which would appear to be property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(2).


      For the reasons stated above, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the application.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Christy Carmen Hammond Represented By Eric C Morris

      Movant(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Christy Carmen Hammond


      Chapter 7

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11004


      Sabra Ann Pazderski


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Motion For Order Compelling Attorney to File Disclosure of Compensation Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016


      EH   


      Docket 14

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/20/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sabra Ann Pazderski Represented By Gilbert A Diaz

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

      Abram Feuerstein esq

      Trustee(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-16191


      Sheri Tanaka Christopher


      Chapter 7


      #8.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH       

      Docket 59


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/27/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $ 4,050.00 Trustee Expenses: $ 65.99


      Attorney Fees: $ 20,374 Attorney Costs: $ 469.15


      Accountant Fees: $1,428.00 Accountant Costs: $248.60


      Court Costs: $350.00


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sheri Tanaka Christopher Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Sheri Tanaka Christopher


      Brian J Soo-Hoo


      Chapter 7

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monserrat Morales

      11:00 AM

      6:15-21570


      Janice Elaine Cox


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 97


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/27/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $ 12,996.59 Trustee Expenses: $ 868.53


      Attorney Fees: $ 22,843.50


      Accountant Fees: $1,848 Accountant Costs: $277.50


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Janice Elaine Cox Represented By Rajiv Jain

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Janice Elaine Cox


      William Malcolm Christina J O


      Chapter 7

      11:00 AM

      6:10-51855


      Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


      Chapter 7


      #10.00 CONT Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation From: 1/16/19

      EH   


      Docket 116

      Tentative Ruling: 3/27/2019

      1. Background


        On December 30, 2010, Brian & Delia Gudets ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 20, 2011, Debtors received a discharge. On October 6, 2011, the case was closed.


        On November 27, 2017, UST filed a motion to reopen the case to potentially administer a settlement award arising from prepetition litigation. On January 4, 2018, Debtors amended Schedules B and C to schedule a personal injury claim in the amount of $50,000, and claim an exemption in the property of $50,000. The Court notes that this amendment may have been in violation of FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 1009(a) and 9006(b)(1), however, the Trustee declined to object to the amended exemptions. On February 13, 2018, the IRS filed a proof of claim ("Claim 4") in the amount of $92,398.37, identifying $34,307.73 as secured and $57,990.64 as entitled to priority.


        On April 9, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise, which was approved by this Court on May 3, 2018. After receiving, $50,000 from the approved settlement, Trustee’s general and special counsel filed applications for compensation.

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


        Chapter 7


        Trustee filed the instant final report on December 11, 2018. The final report proposes to pay $41,488.74 to Trustee and his counsels for administrative expenses, and to pay the remaining $6,011.26 on account of Claim 4.


        The Court held a hearing on the matter on January 16, 2019, and continued the matter for Trustee to file a supplemental brief. On March 5, 2019, Trustee filed a supplemental brief, and then amended the brief on March 20, 2019.


      2. The Court’s Previous Tentative Ruling


        The Court’s previous tentative included the following:


        In essence, Trustee’s proposed distribution pays the Chapter 7 administrative expenses first, the priority tax claim of the IRS second, and the Debtor’s exemption third (although there are no funds available at this point). After reviewing the compromise motion, it appears that the Trustee’s rationale is as follows. First, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B), exempt property of the Debtor is liable for Claim 4. Second, pursuant to § 724(b), payments made on behalf of IRS are only to be made after payment of the administrative expenses of the estate. Trustee appears to miss, however, § 522(k), which provides that exempt property cannot be used to pay administrative expenses, except under limited circumstances which are not applicable here. This provision would seem to preclude Trustee’s attempt to jump ahead of Debtor’s exemption in the order of distribution.


        At first glance, the three cited provisions above would seem paradoxical. According to Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B) places Claim 4 above Debtor’s exemption.

        According to Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 724(b) appears clear that payment on behalf of Claim 4 is subordinated to payment of administrative expenses. And 11 U.S.C. § 522(k) appears clear that payment of administrative expenses is subordinated to payment of Debtor’s exemption.

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets

        The Court’s resolution of this paradox is the following. 11 U.S.C. § 724(b) is only


        Chapter 7

        applicable to "[p]roperty in which the estate has an interest." Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), the settlement proceeds at issue are subject to an exemption and therefore have been "exempt[ed] from property of the estate." See also Schwab v. Reilly, 560

        U.S. 770, 775 (2010) ("If an interested party fails to object within the time allowed, a claimed exemption will exclude the subject property from the estate."). Therefore, the estate does not have an interest in the settlement proceeds and § 724(b) is inapplicable. Because § 724(b) is inapplicable, the remaining provisions place Claim 4 ahead of the exemption and the exemption ahead of the administrative expenses. As a result, Trustee’s is precluded from jumping Claim 4 and Debtor’s exemption in the order of distribution. Therefore, the proper distribution appears to be to pay the secured portion of Claim 4, and to return the balance to the Debtor on account of Debtor’s exemption in the proceeds.


      3. Applicable Statutes


        11 U.S.C. § 724(b)(1)-(3) state the following:


        1. Property in which the estate has an interest and that is subject to a lien that is not avoidable under this title (other than to the extent that there is a properly perfected unavoidable tax lien arising in connection with an ad valorem tax on real or personal property of the estate) and that secures an allowed claim for a tax, or proceeds of such property, shall be distributed –

          1. first, to any holder of an allowed claim secured by a lien on such property that is not avoidable under this title and that is senior to such tax lien

          2. second, to any holder of a claim of a kind specified in section 507(a)(1)

            (C) or 507(a)(2) (except that such expenses under each such section, other than claims for wages, salaries, or commissions that arise after the date of the filing of the petition, shall be limited to expenses incurred under this chapter and shall not include expenses, incurred under chapter 11 of this title), 507(a)(1)(A), 507(a)(1)(B), 507(a)(3), 507(a)(4), 507(a)(5), 507(a)(6), or 507(a)(7) of this title, to the extent of the amount of such allowed tax claim that is secured by such tax lien;

          3. third, to the holder of such tax lien, to any extent that such holder’s allowed tax claim that is secured by such tax lien exceeds any amount

            11:00 AM

            CONT...


            Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets

            distributed under paragraph (2) of this subsection.


            Chapter 7


            11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B) states the following:


        2. Unless the case is dismissed, property exempted under this section is not liable during or after the case for any debt of the debtor that arose, or that is determined under section 502 of this title as if such debt had arisen, before the commencement of the case, except –

(2) a debt secured by a lien that is –

(B) a tax lien, notice of which is properly filed


11 U.S.C. § 522(k) states the following: "Property that the debtor exempts under this section is not liable for payment of any administrative expense except . . ." (exceptions inapplicable to instant situation).


  1. Analysis


    In support of its proposed distribution scheme, Trustee extensively cites three cases: (1) In re Fearing, 2008 WL 4690967 (C.D. Cal. 2008); (2) In re Laredo, 334 B.R. 401

    (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005); and (3) In re Bolden, 327 B.R. 657 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2005).


    The Court does not find In re Fearing to be helpful. The district court’s affirmance was summary, and the bankruptcy court opinion was not published. Furthermore, to the extent In re Fearing engaged in any analysis, it appears to have simply adopted the rationale of the other two cases referenced above.


    Additionally, the Court does not find In re Laredo to be particularly helpful. First, the Court notes that In re Laredo does not appear to make an effort to resolve the apparent conflict between the three statutes cited above; 11 U.S.C. § 522(k) is not cited anywhere in the decision. Second, the Court notes that the extensive excerpt quoted in Trustee’s supplemental brief has been rejected by the majority of the courts that have quoted that section.


    The Court does, however, find In re Bolden to contain helpful analysis. Specifically, the following statement from the bankruptcy court in In re Bolden has the potential to resolve the conflict between the three, ostensibly incompatible statutory provisions:

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


    Chapter 7

    "Generally, a debtor is not entitled to claim a homestead exemption on property that is subject to an IRS levy." In re Bolden, 327 B.R. 657, 663 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2005). In other words, if Debtors’ exemption is not valid to the extent the underlying property is encumbered by an IRS lien, then the prohibition of § 522(k) does not apply to the extent of the IRS lien. See also GINSBERG & MARTIN ON BANKRUPTCY § 6.02[D][2] (5th ed. 2019) ("Section 522(c)(2)(B) gives special protection to taxes by providing that the debtor cannot claim an exemption in property subject to a properly filed tax lien."). Here, the Court concludes that Debtors are unable to claim an exemption in the settlement proceeds to the extent of the properly noticed tax lien. See, e.g., Owen v.

    Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 308-09 (1991); see also In re Hannon, 514 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D.

    Mass. 2014).


    To the extent that there are proceeds available above and beyond the amount of the tax lien, however, Debtors’ exemption is valid and those funds cannot be used to pay administrative costs due to the unambiguous prohibition included within § 522(k). See In re Selander, 592 B.R. 729, 735 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018) ("In the absence of the IRS lien, the Trustee’s request would amount to the naked use of exempt funds to pay costs of the sale and his fees – a result prohibited by § 522(k)."). Of particular note is the fact that all of the cases relied upon by Trustee pre-date Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S.

    415, 422 (2014). Prior to Law v. Siegel, courts not infrequently used various equitable powers to essentially surcharge a debtor’s exemption to pay administrative costs. See, e.g., 4 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 522.12[7] (16th ed. 2014) ("Despite the protection provided for exemptions in section 522(k), a number of courts had held that a debtor’s exempt property could be surcharged for administrative expenses in circumstances beyond those provided for in the statute."). Now, however, the Court is left with no discretion over the application of § 522(k) to the extent Debtors have an allowed exemption in equity in the proceeds. Trustee having failed to object to Debtors’ claimed exemption, Debtors’ exemption is valid to the extent that there is equity in the proceeds.


    The Court notes that on March 19, 2019, the IRS amended Claim 4 to reduce its claim to $4,255.91. Therefore, Debtors’ exemption applies to the remaining $45,744.09, and Trustee can use the framework of 11 U.S.C. §724(b) to distribute the remaining

    $4,255.91 for administrative costs.


  2. Attorney’s Lien

11:00 AM

CONT...


Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


Chapter 7


Trustee next argues that the state court counsel has an equitable attorney lien on the settlement proceeds. The Court rejects this argument for the following reason. Any attorney lien created in this case would have been created postpetition because the underlying state court litigation was not commenced until twenty-one months after the petition date. 11 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(1) provides that property of the estate includes all "legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case." (emphasis added). Because the alleged attorney lien did not exist as of the commencement of the case, it would not have impaired Debtors’ interest in the litigation claim (or its proceeds pursuant to § 541(a)(6)), and therefore, subject to other liens, Debtors’ exemption is valid against the entirety of the proceeds. Because Debtors’ exemption is valid in bankruptcy including as to any interest that state court counsel now has a lien against, those proceeds cannot be used to pay the administrative expenses.


The Court need not reach the issue of whether state court counsel has a valid, postpetition lien against the proceeds which may be enforceable pursuant to state law. For the reasons stated in the above paragraph, satisfaction of the postpetition lien, if valid, cannot occur through distribution in bankruptcy court.


The Court is inclined to APPROVE the following distribution: $45,744.09 to Debtors on account of their valid exemption, and the remaining $4,255.91 for administrative costs. Parties to file a supplement or stipulate as to the distribution of funds available for administrative costs.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brian Gudets Represented By

Rex Tran Ronald Karz

Joint Debtor(s):

Delia F Gudets Represented By Rex Tran Ronald Karz

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


Chapter 7

Sandra L Bendon (TR) Pro Se

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert A Hessling

11:00 AM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7


#11.00 CONT Objection to Claim #17 by Revere Financial Corporation

(Holding date)


From: 10/1/14, 11/5/14, 12/3/14, 12/15/14, 1/28/15, 4/15/15, 7/22/15, 9/23/15, 10/21/15, 11/18/15, 12/16/15, 1/13/16, 3/2/16, 5/4/16, 6/1/16, 9/28/16, 11/16/16,

2/1/17, 2/16/17, 5/3/17, 6/14/17, 6/28/17, 9/20/17, 3/21/18, 6/27/18, 12/19/18


EH      


Docket 333

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/8/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

11:00 AM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7


#12.00 CONT Status Conference re: Second Joint Motion and Moving Memorandum by Chapter 7 Trustee and Revere Financial Corporation for Order Approving Settlement between Chapter 7 Trustee and Revere Financial Corporation


From: 8/22/18, 1/16/19 EH    

Docket 521

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Movant(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

11:00 AM

6:16-19947


Melissa Lynn Dixson


Chapter 7


#13.00 CONT Show Cause Hearing RE: [13] Motion For Contempt Violation Discharge Order


From: 1/9/19, 2/27/19 EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Movant(s):

Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-21418


James Lloyd Walker


Chapter 7


#14.00 Amended First Interim Application for Compensation of Best Best & Krieger LLP for Allowance of Fees and Reimbursement of Costs for Caroline Djang, Trustee's Attorney, Period: 3/21/2016 to 2/5/2019, Fee: $41,094.50, Expenses:

$2,029.19


Also #15 EH   

Docket 152


Tentative Ruling:

3/27/2019


On November 23, 2015, James Walker ("Debtor") filed a chapter 7 voluntary petition. On May 25, 2016, the Court ordered Debtor to turn over certain books and records to Trustee. That same day, the Court authorized the employment of Best Best & Krieger ("Counsel") as general counsel for Trustee.


On July 28, 2016, UST filed a complaint against Debtor objecting to discharge. The adversary was quickly resolved, resulting in the entry of a judgment denying discharge on September 7, 2016.


On March 6, 2017, the Court entered an order authorizing the employment of Century 21- Lois Lauer Realty as real estate broker for Trustee, to facilitate the marketing of certain real property located in Hesperia, California (the "Property"). Between June and November 2017, all of the claims filed in Debtor’s case was either disallowed via Court order, withdrawn, or amended to zero, leaving only administrative creditors.


On March 9, 2018, Trustee filed a motion for turnover of the Property. The motion was continued three times by stipulation of the parties. On October 2, 2018, the Court granted the motion for turnover. On December 21, 2018, Trustee filed a motion for an OSC why Debtor should not be held in contempt for failure to

11:00 AM

CONT...


James Lloyd Walker


Chapter 7

comply with the turnover order. This motion was denied for procedural reasons on January 3, 2019. On January 10, 2019, the motion was refiled, and the Court issued an order to show cause on January 24, 2019. A further interim order on the order to show cause was entered on February 11, 2019.


On February 15, 2019, Counsel filed an application for compensation, requesting an aggregate of $43,123.69 in fees and costs. The application was amended on February 28, 2019 (amended application referred to as the "Application"). The Court notes that it did receive any timely opposition to the amended application.


The Court notes that the Application fails to comply with the Local Rules in two immaterial respects. First, the Court notes that the Application does not contain a disclosure of the amount of money on hand in the estate or the estimated accrued expenses of other professionals pursuant to Local Rule 2016-(1)(a)(1)(A)(iii), although the Court presumes that the amount is zero for both. Second, the Court notes that because there is a second professional employed in this case, the real estate broker, this hearing should have technically been set on 45 days’ notice pursuant to Local Rule 2016-(1)(a)(2). Given that the real estate broker is not the sort of professional who would file an interim fee application, however, the Court will waive this requirement.


The Court notes that Counsel has voluntarily reduced its fees by $9,610 in the instant application, and that the remaining fees arise from 125.9 hours of work at a blended hourly rate of $326.40/hour.


There are extensive issues with the Application. These issues are summarized as follows:


  1. Billing practices related to the Order to Show Cause. The original order to show cause filed with the Court was denied for technical and procedural reasons as briefly described in the relevant Court order [Dkt. No. 129]. While the amended motion, filed on January 10, 2019, was not substantially identical to the original motion, it is materially similar. Page 37 of docket number 152 indicates that Counsel spent 11.4 hours on the original motion, and then spent

    6.7 hours on the new, materially similar motion, excluding related time entries that have been placed in a different billing category. Given that the denial of

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    James Lloyd Walker

    the first motion was based on its technical and procedural inadequacy, the Court is inclined to disallow all time entries that were related to the preparation of the first order to show cause. This includes $1,050 billed between December 19, 2018, and January 8, 2019, and identified as administrative fees, and $2,847 billed between November 9, 2018, and


    Chapter 7

    December 20, 2018, and identified in the asset analysis and recovery category. The Court concludes that these fees did not, and, given the clear technical and procedural deficiencies, could not, have produced any benefit for the estate.

  2. Billing related to the denial of discharge. The Court notes that in August 2016 of the litigation section of Counsel’s application, Counsel has billed $1,565 for work related to a complaint to deny (actually revoke) discharge. The Court notes that these billing entries occurred: (1) after the deadline for Trustee to file a complaint objecting to Debtor’s discharge; and (2) after UST filed its own complaint objecting to Debtor’s discharge. The Court finds that Counsel’s work relating to a potential adversary proceeding to revoke discharge, while UST is prosecuting an adversary proceeding to deny discharge, was not reasonable or necessary, especially given the context of this case and the high probability of success for UST. Therefore, the Court is inclined to deny these entries in their entirety.

  3. Miscellaneous. The Court notes that there is a single entry under the category of negotiations with Trustee, which includes 5.2 hours of billed time and is lumped. First, it is not exactly clear what this billing entry refers to, but, nevertheless, the Court is unable to ascertain the reasonableness of this entry given the lumping. Therefore, the Court is inclined to disallow this entry in the amount of $1,274.


The Court also notes its displeasure with Counsel’s practice of separating closely related work entries into multiple categories, obscuring the record, and unnecessarily complicating the Court’s review and analysis of the time sheets.


Based on the reasons stated above, and noting the lack of any written opposition to the Application, the Court is inclined to ALLOW reduced fees in the amount of

$34,358.50 and costs in the amount of $2,029.19.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


James Lloyd Walker


Chapter 7

James Lloyd Walker Represented By

Andrew Edward Smyth

Movant(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

11:00 AM

6:15-21418


James Lloyd Walker


Chapter 7


#15.00 CONT Order To Show Cause Why The Debtor Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of The Court's Turnover Order


From: 2/7/19, 2/27/19 Also #14

EH   


Docket 138


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

James Lloyd Walker Represented By

Andrew Edward Smyth

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

2:00 PM

6:18-13057


Desert Ice Castle, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01025 Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 trustee v. Liu


#16.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01025. Complaint by Steven

M. Speier, as chapter 7 trustee against Anthony Liu. (Charge To Estate -

$350.00). with Summons and Adversary Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Goe, Robert)


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/26/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Desert Ice Castle, LLC Represented By Paul M Stoddard

Defendant(s):

Anthony Liu Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 Represented By Ryan S Riddles Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01307 Revere Financial Corporation v. OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a


#17.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01307. Complaint by

A. Cisneros against OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC CORPORATION, a California corporation, UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350). for Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 12/30/15, 2/24/16, 4/13/16, 6/22/16, 8/24/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 3/8/17, 7/12/17, 9/13/17, 11/15/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 7/25/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18,

11/14/18, 12/12/18, 12/19/18


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Represented By

Misty A Perry Isaacson

LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC Represented By

Misty Perry Isaacson

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat

Misty A Perry Isaacson


Chapter 7

UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC Represented By

Misty Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:15-14230


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01085 PRINGLE v. Winn et al


#18.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01085. Complaint by JOHN P PRINGLE against Ralph Winn. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). and other Defendants including DOES 1-25 Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13-Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer, 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property,14 - Recovery of money/property - other, 91- Declaratory judgment)


From: 7/12/17, 8/23/17, 10/25/17, 5/16/18, 6/27/18, 9/26/18, 1/23/19


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/26/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

Defendant(s):

Ralph Winn Represented By

Douglas A Plazak

Sterling Security Service, Inc. Represented By Seth W Wiener

Natalia V Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

Steven B Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

Stacy Winn Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Douglas A Plazak


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

JOHN P PRINGLE Represented By Charity J Manee Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01061 Farah v. Bastorous et al


#19.00 Status Conference RE: [45] Amended Complaint THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR NONDISCHARGEABILITY BASED ON 11 USC § 523(a)(2)

(A) AND FOR FRAUD, DECEIT AND/OR FALSE PROMISE by Wayne W Suojanen on behalf of Mina Farah against Mark Bastorous. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:18-ap-01061. Complaint by Mina Farah, Mark Bastorous against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(01 (Determination of removed claim or cause)) filed by Plaintiff Mina Farah). (Suojanen, Wayne)


EH   


Docket 45

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

Mina Farah Pro Se

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01062 Khalil v. Bastorous et al


#20.00 Status Conference RE: [43] Amended Complaint THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR NONDISCHARGEABILITY BASED ON 11 USC § 523(a)(2)

  1. AND FOR FRAUD, DECEIT AND/OR FALSE PROMISE by Wayne W Suojanen on behalf of Anis Khalil against Mark Bastorous. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:18-ap-01062. Complaint by Anis Khalil against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) filed by Plaintiff Anis Khalil). (Suojanen, Wayne)


    EH   


    Docket 43

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Defendant(s):

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Plaintiff(s):

    Anis Khalil Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20025


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


    #21.00 Order to show cause why complaint and countercomplaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution


    Also #22 & #23 EH   

    Docket 44


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Defendant(s):

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Plaintiff(s):

    Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20025


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


    #22.00 CONT Status Conference on Complaint filed on 3/1/18 to Determine Dischargeability of Debt Pursuant to 11 USC 523(a)(6)


    From: 5/3/18, 8/2/18, 8/29/18, 12/5/18, 1/9/19, 1/16/19 Also #21 & #23

    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Defendant(s):

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Plaintiff(s):

    Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20025


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


    #23.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Counterclaim [19] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint to Determine Dischargeability Pursuant to 11

    U.S.C. §523(a)(6) and COUNTERCLAIM of Shatara Adrienne Thompson for Defamation, Counterclaim by Robert Lee Thompson Jr, Shatara Adrienne Thompson against Beatriz M Gutierrez


    From: 8/2/18, 8/29/18, 12/5/18, 1/9/19, 1/16/19 Also #21 & #22

    EH   


    Docket 19


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Defendant(s):

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Plaintiff(s):

    Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:17-17749


    Joshua Cord Richardson


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01146 Sonnenfeld v. Richardson


    #24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01146. Complaint by Cleo Sonnenfeld against Joshua Cord Richardson. (A)(4), and (A)(6); and to Deny Discharge Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 727(A)(3), and (A)(5) (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(66 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims)) (Masud, Laila)


    From: 8/29/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/1/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

    Defendant(s):

    Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

    Plaintiff(s):

    Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By

    D Edward Hays Laila Masud

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Joshua Cord Richardson


    Anthony A Friedman


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:17-13012


    Issa M Musharbash


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


    #25.00 Pre-Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01138. Complaint to Determine Non- Dischargeability of Debt by Phillip Musharbash , Violette Musharbash against Issa M Musharbbash , Amal Musharbbash


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Defendant(s):

    Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

    Amal Musharbash Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Plaintiff(s):

    Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

    Violette Musharbash Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:13-30625


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01089 Mata et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 et a


    #26.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment From: 2/27/19

    Also #27 EH   

    Docket 33

    Tentative Ruling:

    MARCH 27TH, 2019


    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


    On December 31, 2013, John & Livier Mata ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 14, 2014, Debtors received a discharge, and the following day their case was closed.


    On April 18, 2018, Debtors filed a complaint against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4, and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 (collectively, "Defendants") seeking for determination of dischargeability. Specifically, Debtors seek a declaratory judgment that their loans were discharged. On May 18, 2018, Defendants filed their answer.


    On January 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 5, 2019, Debtors filed their opposition. Defendants filed their reply to Debtor’s opposition on February 13, 2019. This matter has been continued once by the Court.


    FACTUAL BACKGROUND


    The background of the extant case is simple, but the underlying context is far more complex.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    First Marblehead Corporation is a formerly NYSE listed private company that, in the mid-2000’s, was a dominant player in the private student loan business. In early 2001, it purchased the operating assets of The Education Resources Institute (hereinafter "TERI"), a nonprofit group primarily involved in the guaranteeing of private student loans. Beginning in 2001, First Marblehead established a financial plan under which banks would offer private student loans, which would then be collected and repackaged into National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (hereinafter "NCSLT"), which would all be, at least ostensibly, guaranteed by TERI, intended to grant the loans protection from discharge, and were finally offered on the open market for investment. The banks involved in the funding of these loans include JP Morgan, HSBC, Citizens, PNC, and, in this particular case, Charter One, among many others. There were 15 NCSLTs in total, owning more than 800,000 private loans worth billions of dollars.1


    Beginning in 2005, First Marblehead became increasingly aggressive in expanding loan volume to riskier debtors and increasing the value of those loans. As the economy began its downturn in 2007, default rates began rapidly increasing, resulting in the eventual bankruptcy of TERI in 2008.


    The question of the nature of the dischargeability of the NCSLT loans has since been taken on by bankruptcy courts across the country. This is one of those cases.


    John Mata took out three $30,000 loans as part of his graduate studies in counseling at Loma Linda University. These occurred in January of 2006, September of 2006, and August of 2007. Each loan was cosigned by Livier Mata, and carried a respective interest rate of 9, 12, and 14%. The loan agreements each stated that the loan was explicitly limited to the costs of attending the school, and one of the loans, that of January 2006 said that TERI was guaranteeing the loan, while the latter two stated that TERI had the option to guarantee the loan. Each of these loans was allegedly then repackaged into the one of the three trusts who are currently the Defendants in this matter (NCSLT 2006-1, 2006-4, 2007-1).


    LEGAL STANDARD

    Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 56(a) (incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7056).


    The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bell v. Cameron Meadows Land Co., 669 F.2d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1982). All reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. Hector v. Wiens, 533 F.2d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1976).


    If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. However, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material fact…." Matsushita Electrical Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986).


    A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.


    LEGAL ANALYSIS


    Defendants are seeking to show that Debtors’ debts are exempt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523.

    11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) states:

    (a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –


    (8) unless excepting such debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents, for –


    (A)(i) an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or


    (ii) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship or stipend; or


  2. any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata

Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual


Chapter 7


Defendants have stated that their motion for summary judgment is based purely nondischargeability of the debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i), and the Court will treat Defendants’ and Debtors’ argument accordingly. In order for Defendants to establish that Debtors’ debts aren’t dischargeable under § 523(a)(8)(A)(i), they must prove two elements:

  1. that the loans to the Debtors were "educational loans" and;

  2. that the loans were made under any program funded in whole or in part by a nonprofit institution.


It is important to note that discussion of the determination of the dischargeability of student debts, including the discussions that occurred within the court cases cited, all occurs under the shadow of the general rule that exceptions to discharge are to be construed narrowly in favor of the debtor. 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 523.05 (Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.).

  1. Whether Debtors’ loans were "educational loans."

    Courts analyze whether loans are "educational loans" separately from considering whether they are "qualified educational loans" under 26 U.S.C. § 221. In re Oliver, 499 B.R. 617, 623-4 (Bankr. S.D.In. 2013). § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) requires that the loans be "educational loans", while § 523(a)(8)(B) has a higher standard, requiring that the loans be "qualified educational loans." Id. (finding that all qualified educational loans are educational loans, but not all educational loans are qualified). The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has followed this approach, holding that an "educational loan" was distinct from an "educational benefit" or a "qualified educational loan." See Kashikar v. Turnstile Capital Mgmt., LLC (In re Kashikar), 567 B.R. 160, 166 (9th Cir. BAP 2017).


    The question of whether a loan is an "educational loan" is determined by its stated purpose, not its actual use. See Busson-Sokolik v. Milwaukee Sch. of Eng’g (In re Busson-Sokolik), 635 F.3d 261, 266 (7th Cir. 2011). The fact that a debtor spent loan proceeds in excess of tuition and expenses does not except debt from discharge.

    Murphy v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 282 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 2002). Educational purpose encompasses both tuition and fees, as well as room, board, and miscellaneous personal expenses, as part of the school’s general cost of attendance as calculated by statute. Id. at 872-3 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1087II(2)-(3). It is up to the individual schools to calculate their reasonable costs of attendance, which determines the disbursement by lenders (with debtors having the choice of how much of said disbursement to accept and use).

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7


    Each of the respective loans in this matter was explicitly restricted to the costs of attending Linda Loma University. (Decl. Bradly Luke, ECF 33, Exhibit A-1 (page 12) (January 2006 loan), Exhibit A-5 (page 57) (September 2006 loan), Exhibit A-9 (page 98) (August 2007 loan)). This appears to clearly state their purpose.


    Debtors seeks to challenge the status of the loans as "educational loans" on three grounds. The first is that the amounts disbursed were far in excess of Linda Loma’s graduate cost of attendance. The second is that the loans carry an unusually high interest rate, have high origination fees, and required a cosigner and credit check. The third is that the loans are not educational loans because they were provided directly to the consumer and ignored the school’s financial aid office.


    While limitation to the cost of attendance is an aspect of "qualified educational loans" not "educational loans", disbursement in great excess of the actual amount needed for educational purpose does argue against a finding that the loan was intended for educational purposes and for a purpose closer to a "student credit card" as the Debtors argue. However, Debtors inexcusably attempts to present the mere tuition cost and mandatory fees of the cost of attending Linda Loma, while completely ignoring the room and board and other miscellaneous expenses explicitly included in the calculations of the true cost of attendance. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. 3 at 25, ECF No. 46 (finding a cost of attendance for Loma Linda of 19,640 purely through the addition of the average full-time graduate tuition of 17,760 and the required fees of 1,880, as reported by Institutional Characteristics). By contrast, Debtors have shown that the amounts were in line with Linda Loma’s stated cost of attendance for graduate students. Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice Exh. 1-3, ECF No. 565 (showing that the tuition costs of Debtor’s program rose from between $33,480-$47,895 to $39,960-57-160 over the course of his three years of attendance, while also showing room and board calculations of more than

    $15,000 for each year that Debtor attended).

    On the second, the Court finds, as other courts have, that commercial features cannot disqualify a loan from being educational, with the sole test being its purpose. Page v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (In re Page), 592 B.R. 334, 336 (8th Cir. BAP 2018). On the third, the Court repeats its finding that purpose controls over form, while also noting that other courts have analyzed direct to consumer loans and the question of whether the loan was disbursed directly to the consumer was a complete non-factor in their decision as to whether they were "educational loans" or not. See id.; see also McDaniel v. Navient Solutions Inc. (In re McDaniel), 590 B.R. 537, 542, 546-551

    (Bankr. D.Colo. 2018).

    In view of the above, the Court cannot find, even after drawing all reasonable

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    inferences for the Debtors’ that they have established any genuine issues of material fact, or questions of law, as to the question of whether these loans were "educational loans."


  2. Whether the loans were "funded, in whole or in part, by a nonprofit institution."


In the current case, Defendants’ claim to exemption from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) is dependent on their showing that a nonprofit has funded the loan program under which the loan was made, either in whole, or in part. Defendants argue that the guarantee of the loan program through which Debtors’ loan was made by The Education Resources Institute (TERI), a nonprofit institution, satisfies this requirement. This splits the question into two elements. First, whether TERI’s guarantee is considered to have legally "funded" the loan program in question.

Secondly, whether TERI did in fact guarantee the loans at issue, an issue of factual, not legal, controversy. Debtors raises a third issue, by arguing that the TERI’s alleged voiding of the guarantees of the loans in question should strip the loans retroactively of their status as being guaranteed by a nonprofit institution.


  1. Whether a nonprofit can "fund" a loan program through guaranteeing the loans.


    This question has been litigated throughout several districts, often involving the NCSLTs, with the general consensus of the courts being that a nonprofit guaranteeing a loan functions is the nonprofit funding, in whole or in part, the loan program under which the educational loan was made. See O’Brien v. First Marblehead Educ. Res., Inc. (In re O’Brien), 419 F.3d 104, 106 (2nd Cir. 2005); see also Educ. Res. Inst. Inc.

    v. Taratuska (In re Taratuska), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93206 at *17-18 (D. MA 2008) (reversing In re Taratuska, 374 B.R. 24, 29 (Bankr. D.MA 2007), the only case cited by Debtors supporting their position that guaranteeing and funding are two separate actions, meaning that nonprofits aren’t "funding" the loan through their guarantee). The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel agrees with this line of reasoning, interpreting (A)(i) as covering "an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution." Inst. of Imaginal Studies v. Christoff (In re Christoff), 527 B.R. 624, 632 (9th Cir. BAP 2015). However, the BAP’s interpretation of (A)(i) has never been litigated.


    In contrast to the general trend cited above, the District of Maine reached an opposite conclusion, finding that the guarantee of a loan by a nonprofit did not constitute the "funding" of the loan. Wiley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Wiley), 579 B.R. 1, 6-7 (Bankr. D.Me. 2017). The Wiley court built this finding on their interpretation of O’Brien, stating that it required the nonprofit to both guarantee the loan and fund the

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    loan program, as well as on Educ. Res. Inst., Inc. v. Hammarstrom (In re Hammarstrom), 95 B.R. 160, 165 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1989). In re Wiley, 579 B.R. at 6-7. However, there are two problems with there interpretation. The first is that Hammerstrom’s requirement of the direct funding of the loan, as received by the debtor, by the nonprofit was explicitly challenged by the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy

    Appellate Panel in HEMAR Service Corp., Inc. v. Pilcher, 149 B.R. 595, 600 (9th Cir. BAP 1993) (reversing the bankruptcy court’s holding that a student loan could be discharged due to lack of a nonprofit providing the actual funds that debtor received, and finding that Hammarstrom’s requirement was a pure judicial construction, with the real test being whether the nonprofit had played "any meaningful part" in making the funds available under the program). Secondly, the Wiley court’s interpretation of O’Brien is deeply flawed at best. The 2nd Circuit in O’Brien did state that the nonprofit had to "fund" the program, however, it defined "funding" using the bankruptcy court’s test which required that the nonprofit actually pay out the guarantees when the triggering event occurred, and that the loan program’s existence was causally linked to the nonprofit’s provision of a guarantee to the for-profit lender for the loan. See O’Brien, 419 F.3d at 105-6 (specifically adopting the test created by the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court in In re O’Brien, 318 B.R. 258, 260-1 (Bankr.

    S.D.N.Y. 2005)).

    The Court finds persuasive the consensus of courts around the country that a nonprofit’s guaranteeing of a loan program satisfies the requirement of "funding" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) for the purposes of exempting a loan from discharge, including that of the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and also adopts this interpretation. As such, the Court agrees with Defendants that, if TERI has in fact guaranteed the loan program in question, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


  2. Whether Defendant has established that there is no genuine issue of material fact that TERI actually guaranteed the loan.

    1. Did TERI, on paper, guarantee the loans?

      Debtors argue that there is a material issue of fact concerning whether or not TERI was the actual guarantor of the September 2006 and August 2007 loans. This is based in part on two related grounds: the first is that two of the three loan agreement do not explicitly state that TERI will guarantee the loans, merely that they have the option to do so. The mere existence of an option, rather than direct proof that TERI in fact guaranteed the loan program in question, has been found sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Golden et. al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, et. al., 596

      B.R. 239, 266 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019). The second issue raised by Debtors is that the NSCLT trust agreement schedules does not specifically list the NextStudent Graduate

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John Martin Mata


      Chapter 7

      Loan as one of the programs transferred or sold to the Trusts (listing instead NextStudent Alternative Loan Program). This has also been found sufficient to create a material issue of fact. See National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2007-4 v. Watson, 2016

      N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5116 at *7 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct. 2016).

      However, it is clear within this case that Debtor’s loans were in fact guaranteed by TERI, and that they were each sold to the respective trusts that make up the defendants. Defendants have disclosed the Loan Financial Activity pages, which identify Debtors by name, and also state that the loans were guaranteed by TERI. Decl. Luke ¶15; Id. Exh. A-3 (page 18 within the declaration). It also includes the identification by social security number of Debtor within the trusts’ contained loans, as well as guarantee agreements between TERI and each of the individual trusts. By contrast, in Golden, the genuine issue of material fact was due to the Defendants only providing the loan documentation stating that the loan potentially could be guaranteed by TERI. In short, the Court cannot find that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether TERI, on paper, guaranteed the loan program which provided Debtors’ loans.

    2. Was TERI actually guarantee the loans?

      In order to fund a loan program through guaranteeing the loans, the guarantee must actually come into effect, instead of just being a paper promise to render the debt exempt from discharge. See O’Brien, 419 F.3d at 105-6. Debtors’ student loan servicer has declared that Debtors’ student loans were guaranteed by TERI, but Debtors allege that the guarantees did not actually occur. Decl. Luke ¶¶ 17, 25, 34 (ECF No. 33-4). As noted by Debtors, evidence demonstrating the actual guarantee by TERI of the loans within the loan program would include guarantee agreements between TERI and the loan originators and, evidence that the loan originators actually paid TERI guarantee fees as agreed upon. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. 4, Defendants Responses and Objections to Requests for Production No. 7, ECF No. 46 (Debtors requesting "all documents demonstrating that TERI guaranteed the loans" including checks payable by the loan originators to TERI for the guarantee fees and guarantee agreements between TERI and the loan originators).


      However, Debtors appear to have answered this question themselves, when they showed that Defendants had refunded the Royal Bank of Scotland (who wholly owned, at the time of Debtors’ loan creation Citizens Bank, who owned Charter One, the loan originator) $46,000,000 in guarantee fees as part of resolving RBS secured claims against TERI concerning loans extended prior to TERI’s bankruptcy. Id. at Exh. 6, Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of The Education Resources Institute, Inc at page 65; Id. at 11 (defining "collateral account" as a pledged account, victory fund, pool account, or joint pool account—all of which were accounts

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John Martin Mata


      Chapter 7

      containing guarantee fees intended for the payment of guarantees should the conditions be triggered); see also Supplementary Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 4, Disclosure Statement for Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of The Education Resources Institute at pages 3-7, ECF No. 55 (explaining how the myriad banks decided how TERI should segregate or not segregate the guarantee fees they paid in view of paying out guarantees on the loan). The massive balances on the collateral accounts of the NCSLTs, including all three trusts in question, revealed by the disclosure statement to the confirmed Fourth Amended Plan, shows that the combined guarantee fees sequestered for guarantee payments, as well as the recoveries collected, numbered in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Disclosure Statement at page 11.


      It is difficult for this Court to find that Debtors have raised a genuine question of fact as to the substance of TERIs guarantees, when the Debtors themselves have put forward clear evidence that tens of millions of dollars were being paid in guarantee fees to TERI, including tens of millions by Charter One, and TERI was simultaneously shelling out tens of millions of dollars in loan purchases as part of the guarantee.


  3. Whether TERI has voided their guarantee of the loan program in question, and whether, if shown, this would retroactively change whether the loans were funded by a nonprofit institution.


Debtors correctly assert that TERI’s debt guarantees for loans extended prior to TERI’s petition were voided as a part of their confirmed plan for reorganization. Fourth Amended Plan at page 40, ECF No. 46. Defendants appear to be trying to confuse the Court by pointing to the transition agreement between TERI and RBS through which RBS agreed to accept the transfer of "pipeline" loans (loans applied for before, or on TERI’s petition, but extended by the lender after). See Plaintiff’s Opposition, Exh. 5, Transition Agreement Between TERI and RBS at pages 3-4.

However, it is clear that the settling of the guarantees for loans prior to bankruptcy, as illustrated above, was the foundation of TERI’s reorganization, and the Court proceeds accordingly.


However, even if the guarantee is no longer extant, the Court does not find that this changes the fundamental nature of how the loans were funded in the first place. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) states that the exemption of a loan from discharge is dependent on the loan program under which it was made, not the context under which it still exists. The exemptions under § 523 look at actions of the debtor at the time that they took the action in question, not the status of those actions at the time of the current proceedings. Debtor should not be allowed to discharge a debt that he knew was intended to be exempt at the time he made the loan, was made under a program clearly

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Chapter 7

intended to protect the loans from discharge, and would still be exempt at the current time, barring the fact that the guarantor collapsed because too many other debtors had defaulted on their loans.


As such, the Court finds unpersuasive the argument that the rejection of TERI’s argument that TERI’s bankruptcy has retroactively changed the status of Debtors’ debt.


TENTATIVE RULING


THE COURT FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND THAT THERE ARE NO GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS HEREBY GRANTED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark

Defendant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

Joint Debtor(s):

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Damian P Richard


Chapter 7

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

Plaintiff(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-30625


John Martin Mata


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01089 Mata et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 et a


#27.00 CONT-Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01089. Complaint by John Martin Mata, Livier Mata against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-4, National

Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1. (Charge To Estate) - Filing Fee Not Required. Determination of Discharge Under 11 U.S.C. Sect 523(a)(8) Nature of Suit: 63 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(8), student loan, 91 - Declaratory judgment


From: 6/27/18, 8/22/18, 2/27/19 Also #26

EH       


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark

Defendant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard

Joint Debtor(s):

Livier Mata Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Michael E Clark


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-12440


Paul Pound


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01147 Lloyd v. Pound


#28.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment From: 11/14/18, 12/5/18, 1/16/19, 2/6/19 Also #29

EH   


Docket 6

Tentative Ruling:

2/6/2019

  1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


    On March 26, 2018, Paul Pound ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On July 2, 2018, April Lloyd ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Debtor to determine dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(a), (a)(4), and (a)(6)). On July 9, 2018, Debtor obtained a discharge and, four days later, the case was closed.


    On July 31, 2018, Debtor filed his answer. On October 3, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. After a stipulated continuance of the hearing, Debtor filed his opposition on October 31, 2018.


  2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND


    On November 13, 2016, Marcus Lloyd, Plaintiff’s brother entered into a purchase agreement with Debtor on behalf of Juanita Lloyd ("Juanita"), Plaintiff’s mother, which was intended to be structured, according to Plaintiff, to "retrieve the equity in Juanita’s home and lower her mortgage payments." Instead, according to Plaintiff, the agreement "was constructed to deprive Juanita of her home without receiving value

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Paul Pound


    Chapter 7

    from the Debtor." Plaintiff’s account of the details of the purchase agreement, recited on page 12 of the motion for summary judgment, are as follows:


    The Purchase Agreement stated that the purchase price was $670,000. The purchase price comprised of 75% in financing, 20% in seller carry back, and a 5% cash down payment. After closing, the seller was to release the seller carry back, and receive equity in return, and the seller was to reimburse the buyer the 5% cash down payment, and receive equity in return. Once the seller carry back was released, and the down payment reimbursed, all equity was to belong to the seller. Furthermore, the Purchase Agreement required that rental payments, equal to the amount of the mortgage payment, be made each month. In addition, at the time of closing, the Debtor was entitled to 3% of the purchase price as a real estate fee. Per the Purchase Agreement, Juanita deposited monthly payments into to [sic] the Debtor’s Bank of American account starting around December 2006. She continued to make these payments until May 2007, when the Debtor requested that Juanita submit payments to a new account with Washington Mutual.


    [Dkt. No. 6, pg 12].


    Ultimately, on November 16, 2009, Juanita filed a complaint against Debtor in state court, asserting causes of action for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. On August 30, 2011, Debtor and Juanita entered into a stipulated judgment which provided that Debtor would make periodic payments to Juanita totaling $60,000. In the event that Debtor failed to comply with the payment schedule, the state court would enter judgment for the remaining balance.1


    In January 2014, Debtor stopped adhering to the periodic payment schedule. On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff moved for entry of judgment in state court and, on December 20, 2016, the state court entered judgment in the amount of $42,000.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Paul Pound

  3. DISCUSSION


    Chapter 7


    Plaintiff moves to have this debt deemed nondischargeable pursuant to three different provisions: (1) 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A); (2) 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4); and (3) 11 U.S.C.

    § 523(a)(6).


    11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6) state:


    1. A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –


  1. for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of creditor, to the extent obtained by –


    1. false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;


      (4) for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny;


      (6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity


      The elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim are well-established: (a) the debtor made representations; (b) which were known to be false; (c) the representations were made with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor; (d) the creditor relied on such representations; (e) the creditor sustained loss and damage as a proximate result of the representations. See, e.g., In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010).


      11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) contains three different exceptions to dischargeability: (1) fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity; (2) larceny; and (3) embezzlement. Regarding fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, the elements are:

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Paul Pound


      Chapter 7

      (1) the existence of an express trust; (2) the debt was caused by fraud or defalcation; and (3) the debtor acted as a fiduciary to the creditor at the time the debt was created. See, e.g., In re Niles, 106 F.3d 1456, 1459 (9th Cir. 1997). "Larceny is the fraudulent and wrongful taking and carrying away of the property of another with intent to convert the property to the taker’s use without the consent of the owner." 4 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 523.10[2] (16th ed. 2009). Finally, embezzlement, contains three elements: "(1) property rightfully in the possession of a nonowner; (2) nonowner’s appropriation of the property to a use other than which it was entrusted; and (3) circumstances indicating fraud." In re Littleton, 942 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1991).


      To prevail on a claim under § 523(a)(6), a creditor must demonstrate three elements:

      1. willful conduct; (2) malice; and (3) causation. See In re Butcher, 200 B.R. 675, 680 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1996) (quoting In re Apte, 180 B.R. 223, 230 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)). A willful injury is a "deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury." Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998). "A malicious injury involves (1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse." In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2001)).


        Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) (incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by by FED. R. BANKR. P. 7056). This required the moving party to "affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party." Soremkun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007).


        The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts that show a genuine issue for trial. See id. at 324. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). All reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. See id.


        If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must set forth, by

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Paul Pound


        Chapter 7

        affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id. The non-moving party, however, "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material fact…." Matsushita Electrical Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986).


        A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.


        1. Issue Preclusion on Plaintiff’s Claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)



          Issue preclusion applies in nondischargeability proceedings to bar the relitigation of factual issues that were determined in a prior state court action. See, e.g., Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284-85, n.11 (1991). To determine the issue-preclusive effect of a California state court's judgment, California preclusion law must be applied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380

          (1985); Gayden v. Nourbakhsh (In re Nourbakhsh), 67 F.3d 798, 800 (9th Cir. 1995). Under California law, the party asserting issue preclusion has the burden of establishing the following "threshold" requirements:

          1. the issue sought to be precluded must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding;

          2. the issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding;

          3. it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding;

          4. the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits; and,

          5. the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding.

            Harmon v. Kobrin (In re Harmon), 250 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.2001). Additionally, the application of issue preclusion requires a "mandatory ‘additional’

            2:00 PM

            CONT...


            Paul Pound


            Chapter 7

            inquiry into whether imposition of issue preclusion would be fair and consistent with sound public policy." In re Khaligh, 338 B.R. 817, 824–25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2006). As stated by the California Supreme Court


            We have repeatedly looked to the public policies underlying the doctrine before concluding that collateral estoppel should be applied in a particular setting. Accordingly, the public policies underlying

            collateral estoppel—preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, promotion of judicial economy, and protection of litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation—strongly influence whether its application in a particular circumstance would be fair to the parties and constitutes sound judicial policy.

            Lucido v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 3d 335, 342–43 (Cal. 1990) (internal citations omitted).


            As noted by Plaintiff, it is true that, in some situations, a stipulated judgment can form the basis for collateral estoppel. "The parties need only ‘manifest an intent to be collaterally bound by’ the terms of the stipulated judgment." In re Boyce, 2016 WL 6247612 at *3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Cal. State Auto. Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bureau v. Super. Ct., 50 Cal. 3d 658, 664 (Cal. 1990)).


            Here, Debtor has filed a declaration which states that "[t]he judgment was never intended to be dispositive of the facts of the case." [Dkt. No. 17, ¶ 11]. This is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact and defeat Plaintiff’s argument as to issue preclusion at the summary judgment stage. See In re Jun Ho Yang, 698 Fed. Appx. 374 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Here, Jun Ho Yang submitted a declaration that he did not intend the stipulated facts in the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in the prior state court action to have a preclusive effect in future proceedings. Such a declaration (even if self-serving) creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the parties’ intent.")

        2. Absence of a Genuine Issue of Material Fact



      Plaintiff’s alternative argument is that summary judgment is warranted because uncontroverted facts establish that the debt is non-dischargeable. The Court disagrees with this argument.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Paul Pound


      Chapter 7

      Regarding § 523(a)(2)(A), Debtor denies, inter alia, that he had the intent to deceive Plaintiff, and supports such denial with factual assertions establishing that possibility. "The intent to deceive is a factual question and largely depends upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony." In re Sutton, 2015 WL 7776658 at *6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015). In this case, "where different ultimate inferences may be drawn from the parties’ differing characterization of the facts, summary judgment is inappropriate." In re Allen, 2018 WL 909876 at *3 (Bankr. C.D. Cal 2018) (citing Sankovich v. Ins. Co of N. Am., 638 F.2d 136, 140 (9th Cir. 1981); see also In re Lucas, 386 B.R. 332 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2008) ("Rarely is it appropriate to grant summary judgment on a claim for nondischargeability based on 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because intent to defraud often depends on the credibility of witnesses."). Here, Debtor asserts that it was Plaintiff that first breached the purchase agreement, and that, upon such breach, Debtor continued to act in accordance with the purchase agreement for several months after the breach. The Court concludes that Debtor has established, at the least, a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether Debtor had an intent to deceive Plaintiff.


      Regarding § 523(a)(4), Plaintiff argues that the payments her mother made pursuant to the purchase agreement were ultimately embezzled by Debtor. In support of such argument, Plaintiff relies upon extrinsic evidence about the parties’ intent when entering into the purchase agreement. Debtor has presented a different account of the parties’ intent regarding the purchase agreement which, if true, would not allow for Debtor’s actions to be characterized as embezzlement. Therefore, the Court concludes that Debtor has entitled a genuine issue of material fact with regard to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to § 523(a)(4).


      Regarding § 523(a)(6), the Court concludes that Debtor has established a genuine issue of material fact for the same reason as noted in the two preceding paragraphs – namely that Debtor has asserted that it was Plaintiff’s mother who first breached the purchase agreement, and that Debtor made a good-faith effort to comply with the terms of the purchase agreement for several months after the original breach.


      TENTATIVE RULING

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Paul Pound


      Chapter 7


      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Paul Pound Represented By

      Todd L Turoci

      Defendant(s):

      Paul M Pound Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Movant(s):

      April Lloyd Represented By

      Chane Buck

      Plaintiff(s):

      April Lloyd Represented By

      Chane Buck

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:18-12440


      Paul Pound


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01147 Lloyd v. Pound


      #29.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Complaint by April Lloyd against Paul M Pound. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud, 67 - Dischargeability - 523(a) (4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury


      From: 9/5/18, 11/14/18, 12/5/18, 1/16/19, 2/6/19 Also #28

      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Paul Pound Represented By

      Todd L Turoci

      Defendant(s):

      Paul M Pound Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Plaintiff(s):

      April Lloyd Represented By

      Chane Buck

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      3:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01329 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #30.00 Order To Show Cause As To Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed


      Also #31 EH   

      Docket 423


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Previti Realty Fund, L.P. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      The James Previti Family Trust Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

      Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

      3:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01329 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #31.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

      (Defendant - Empire Partners, Inc) HOLDING DATE


      From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

      1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

      12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

      10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

      11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/27


      Also #30 EH      

      Docket 1

      Tentative Ruling:

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Previti Realty Fund, L.P. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      The James Previti Family Trust Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

      Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond


      Chapter 7

      3:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:09-01235 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #32.00 Order To Show Cause As To Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed


      Also #33 EH   

      Docket 475


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      David Loughnot Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Pro Se

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K. DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

      Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

      3:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:09-01235 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #33.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

      1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

      12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

      10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

      11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/19


      Also #32 EH      

      Docket 1

      Tentative Ruling:

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      David Loughnot Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K. DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

      Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

      3:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #34.00 CONT Motion By Defendant Empire Partners, Inc To Compel Compliance With Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Timothy Sullivan, And For Sanctions


      From: 1/30/19, 3/13/19 Also #35 & #36

      EH   


      Docket 498


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Larry Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Neil M Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Paul Roman Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Movant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Larry Day Represented By

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


      Chapter 7

      Neil M Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

      Michael I Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

      3:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #35.00 Order To Show Cause As To Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed


      Also #34 & #36 EH   

      Docket 516


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


      Chapter 7

      Larry Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Neil M Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Paul Roman Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

      Michael I Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond


      Chapter 7

      3:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #36.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

      01/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

      12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

      10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

      11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/27/19


      Also #34 & #35 EH      

      Docket 1

      Tentative Ruling:

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Larry Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Neil M Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Paul Roman Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

      Michael I Gottfried

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Empire Land, LLC


      Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur


      Chapter 7

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

      3:00 PM

      :


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      Chapter 0

      Misc#: 6:18-00105 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      #37.00 CONT Motion for Protective Order re Third Party Subpoena From: 1/30/19, 3/13/19

      Also #38 EH   

      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Defendant(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Larry R Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Neil Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      Chapter 0

      Peter Healy Pro Se

      Paul Roman Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      KPMG LLP Represented By

      Richard W Esterkin

      Plaintiff(s):

      Richard K Diamond Pro Se

      3:00 PM

      :


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      Chapter 0

      Misc#: 6:18-00105 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      #38.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party KPMG LLP, and For Sanctions


      From: 1/30/19, 3/13/19 Also #37

      EH   


      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Defendant(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Larry R Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Neil Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      Chapter 0

      O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

      Peter Healy Pro Se

      Paul Roman Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Larry R Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Neil Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Plaintiff(s):

      Richard K Diamond Pro Se

      3:00 PM

      :


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      Chapter 0

      Misc#: 6:18-00104 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      #39.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party William Haegele, and For Sanctions


      From: 1/30/19, 3/13/19 EH    

      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Defendant(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

      Larry R Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb

      Neil Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb

      Paul Roman Pro Se

      O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

      Peter Healy Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al

      Jeffrey Rosenfeld


      Chapter 0

      Plaintiff(s):

      Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

      3:00 PM

      :


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      Chapter 0

      Misc#: 6:18-00103 Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      #40.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Analysis Group, Inc., and For Sanctions


      From: 1/30/19, 3/13/19 EH   

      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Defendant(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Partners, Inc. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Larry R Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Neil Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Paul Roman Pro Se

      O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

      Peter Healy Pro Se

      3:00 PM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Diamond v. Empire Partners, Inc. et al


      Chapter 0

      Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Larry R Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Neil Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Plaintiff(s):

      Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

      3:00 PM

      :


      Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al


      Chapter 0

      Misc#: 6:18-00102 Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al


      #41.00 CONT Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Served On Non-Party Bruce Deal, and For Sanctions


      From: 1/30/19, 3/13/19 EH   

      Docket 6


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Defendant(s):


      Party Information

      Empire Partners Inc Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Larry R Day Represented By

      Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Neil Miller Represented By

      Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Paul Roman Pro Se

      O'Melveny & Myers LLP Pro Se

      Peter Healy Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Empire Partners Inc Represented By Jonathan A Loeb

      3:00 PM

      CONT...


      Diamond v. Empire Partners Inc et al

      Jeffrey Rosenfeld


      Chapter 0

      Plaintiff(s):

      Richard K Diamond Represented By Peter M Bransten

      11:00 AM

      6:16-16720


      Luevina Henry


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


      #1.00 CONT Status Conference on Complaint fld 8-25-17 - Dischargeability, willful and malicious injury, validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property, injunctive relief


      From: 11/16/17, 11/1/18, 12/20/18, 12/20/18, 2/7/19


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Luevina Henry Pro Se

      Defendant(s):

      Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker

      THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker

      Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

      Tavares Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Luevina Henry Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-14169


      Sally Michelle Greene


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Application for Compensation of Attorney for Debtor for Additional Fees & Related Expenses in a Pending Chapter 13 Case Subject to a Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (RARA) [11 U.S.C. §330(a)(4)(B); LBR 3015-1(v) (2)], Declaration of Attorney for Debtor in Support Thereof with proof of service for Sunita N Sood, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 6/29/2017 to 1/3/2019, Fee:

      $1,300.00, Expenses: $0.00 EH   

      Docket 52


      Tentative Ruling:

      Having reviewed declaration of Debtor, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the application in its entirety.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sally Michelle Greene Represented By Sunita N Sood

      Movant(s):

      Sally Michelle Greene Represented By Sunita N Sood

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-11167


      Victor Thomas Lawton


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


      Also #4 EH   

      Docket 48


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

      Movant(s):

      Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-11167


      Victor Thomas Lawton


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19, 3/14/19

      Also #3 EH   

      Docket 45


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-13239


      Gerald Bauer


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 CONT Motion to vacate dismissal From:3/14/19

      EH   


      Docket 43

      Tentative Ruling:

      3/14/19

      BACKGROUND


      On April 19, 2017, Gerald Bauer ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 13, 2017, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


      On December 13, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for plan infeasibility. On January 31, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the matter, and continued Trustee’s motion for one week for Debtor to lodge an order on his proposed plan modification. During that one-week period, Debtor did not lodge an order on the motion to modify plan, and no appearance was made on behalf of Debtor at the continued hearing. On February 7, 2019, the Court dismissed Debtor’s case.


      On February 8, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal arguing that the case was dismissed due to attorney mistake. Among other things, Debtor’s counsel states that he was informed by Trustee that the motion to dismiss would be withdrawn prior to the hearing. On February 11, 2019, Trustee filed comments indicating conditional approval. Trustee also states that the statement of Debtor’s counsel that regarding withdrawal of the motion to dismiss "is not credible and makes no sense." [Dkt. No.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Gerald Bauer


      Chapter 13

      46, ¶ 1].


      DISCUSSION



      Debtor relies on FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, which allows for relief from an order based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."


      The legal basis for Debtor’s assertion that the dismissal order should be vacated is that Debtor’s counsel inadvertently did not appear at the hearing due miscommunication with Trustee, an assertion which the Trustee states is not credible. Additionally, it is well established that "an attorney’s ignorance and carelessness does not provide grounds for Rule 60(b) relief." In re Mercado, 144 B.R. 879, 886 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.

      1992) (citing Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972). And the mere assertion that counsel did not fulfill its duties, but that such carelessness was inadvertent, is clearly inadequate to support Rule 60(b) relief. See, e.g., In re ACME Motors, Inc., 125 B.R. 702, 703 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1991).


      "Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary." Id. Yet, in this court, a request for relief from a Chapter 13 dismissal order has become semi-ordinary. On occasion, the requests are legally sound. Here, however, the evidence provided simply indicates that Debtor’s counsel did not attend the hearing for reasons that do not appear to be credible.


      The Seventh Circuit has stated that:


      [T]he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds. The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Gerald Bauer

      not present exceptional circumstances.


      Chapter 13



      Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009). "Although attorney carelessness can [in certain circumstances] constitute ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney’s somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion conditioned on compliance with the Trustee’s conditions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Daniel King to personally appear at the hearing.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gerald Bauer Represented By

      Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Gerald Bauer Represented By

      Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13793


      Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


      EH   


      Docket 47


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Movant(s):

      Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-16811


      Donna Roberto


      Chapter 13


      #7.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 1 by Claimant Tyler & Bursch, LLP.

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 11/8/18, 11/29/18 Also #8

      EH   


      Docket 31


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Donna Roberto Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Donna Roberto Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-16811


      Donna Roberto


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/25/18, 11/15/18, 11/29/18

      Also #7 EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Donna Roberto Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17003


      Jose Gacho Ruidera, Jr. and Maria Genalyn Raneses


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 Motion to Disallow Claims Cach LLC EH   

      Docket 41


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Gacho Ruidera Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Genalyn Raneses Ruidera Represented By

      Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Jose Gacho Ruidera Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

      Maria Genalyn Raneses Ruidera Represented By

      Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17556


      Daniel Javier Garcia


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/8/18, 1/17/19, 1/24/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18794


      Roy Morales and Lalani Dee Morales


      Chapter 13


      #11.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 1 by Claimant Everest National Insurance Company


      EH   


      Docket 28


      Tentative Ruling:

      The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, disallowing Claim 1 in its entirety.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Roy Morales Represented By

      Robert W Ripley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lalani Dee Morales Represented By Robert W Ripley

      Movant(s):

      Roy Morales Represented By

      Robert W Ripley

      Lalani Dee Morales Represented By Robert W Ripley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18809


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 CONT Motion Re: Objection to Claim Number 3 by Claimant IRS From: 1/10/19, 2/7/19

      Also #13 EH   

      Docket 28


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Movant(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18809


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13


      #13.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18, 1/10/19, 2/7/19

      Also #12 EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-19729


      John R Saxton


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/17/19, 3/21/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John R Saxton Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20002


      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/7/19, 2/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20070


      Alexander J Perfinowicz and Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Alexander J Perfinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20200


      Denise Cherie Darden


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 2/7/19, 2/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Denise Cherie Darden Represented By Julie Philippi

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20635


      Luis Antonio Gaeta


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 2/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Luis Antonio Gaeta Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20787


      Terri Tavona Randolph


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 CONT Motion to Disallow Claims number 2 From: 3/14/19

      Also #20 EH   

      Docket 18

      Tentative Ruling:

      3/14/2019

      BACKGROUND:


      On December 28, 2019, Terry Randolph ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 3, 2019, CarMax Auto Finance ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $30,730.76 ("Claim 2"). On February 7, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 2. Creditor argues that the collateral for Claim 2, a vehicle, was repossessed.


      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Terri Tavona Randolph


      Chapter 13

      upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:


      Here, Debtor has not provided any evidence that the subject vehicle was repossessed. Debtor has provided a bankruptcy credit report which indicates that the claim was identified at $20,284 on November 30, 2018. Given that the evidence submitted by Creditor appears to be a simple text file print-off, with limited information, and given that Creditor has failed to oppose the instant claim objection, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h), the Court is inclined to accept Debtor’s proposed reduction of the claim to $20,284. On the current record, however, the Court has no evidentiary basis to determine that the collateral was repossessed and sold.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Terri Tavona Randolph


      Chapter 13

      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection to the extent of decreasing Claim 2 to $20,284 and otherwise OVERRULE the objection without prejudice.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Terri Tavona Randolph Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Terri Tavona Randolph Represented By Dana Travis Dana Travis Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20787


      Terri Tavona Randolph


      Chapter 13


      #20.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/14/19

      Also #19 EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Terri Tavona Randolph Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20847


      Erica Raquel Zavaleta


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/14/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Erica Raquel Zavaleta Represented By William J Smyth Stephen S Smyth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10024


      James J. Ysais


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/14/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      James J. Ysais Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10052


      Dwayne J. Williams and Dana S. Williams


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/14/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Dwayne J. Williams Represented By Michael Jay Berger

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dana S. Williams Represented By Michael Jay Berger

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10084


      Sandra Luz Torres


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Sandra Luz Torres Represented By Jason B Cruz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10103


      Jeffrey Allan Cohn


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jeffrey Allan Cohn Represented By Stephen L Burton

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10138


      Lisa J Mirabal


      Chapter 13


      #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lisa J Mirabal Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10152


      Miguel Camacho


      Chapter 13


      #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/28/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Miguel Camacho Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10155


      Ida Mary Valencia


      Chapter 13


      #28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/28/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ida Mary Valencia Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10189


      Theresa Ann Cesiro


      Chapter 13


      #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Theresa Ann Cesiro Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10216


      Quynhgiao N Tran


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Quynhgiao N Tran Represented By Siamak E Nehoray

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10243


      Claudia Elena Arevalos


      Chapter 13


      #31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Claudia Elena Arevalos Represented By Robert L Firth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10244


      Vicki Ann Murray


      Chapter 13


      #32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Vicki Ann Murray Represented By Robert L Firth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10245


      Michelle Sanchez


      Chapter 13


      #33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 1/29/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michelle Sanchez Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10273


      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


      Chapter 13


      #34.00 Motion for Setting Property Value Also #35

      EH   


      Docket 17

      Tentative Ruling:

      3/28/19

      BACKGROUND


      On January 13, 2019, Maisha Ghant-Elie ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2013 Hyundai Sonata (the "Property"). Santander Consumer USA Inc. ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property. On February 1, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $18,891.87, identifying $8,950 as secured by the Property.


      On February 18, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to value the Property. Debtor asserts that the Property should be valued at $6,427.


      DISCUSSION



      One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


      Chapter 13

      In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


      Presently, the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

      N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


      According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


      Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party values of the Dodge and the Ram. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings for supplemental evidence.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


      Chapter 13

      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady

      Movant(s):

      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady John F Brady John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10273


      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


      Chapter 13


      #35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


      Also #34 EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10276


      Julie Michelle Tsosie


      Chapter 13


      #36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Julie Michelle Tsosie Represented By Alon Darvish

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10290


      Miguel Jose Padilla, Jr. and Holly Lynn Padilla


      Chapter 13


      #37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Miguel Jose Padilla Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Holly Lynn Padilla Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10297


      Denise Ann Vargas


      Chapter 7


      #38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CON VERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 2/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Denise Ann Vargas Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10313


      Silvia Guzman Carrete


      Chapter 13


      #39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Silvia Guzman Carrete Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10318


      Olivia Susana Norris


      Chapter 13


      #40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/1/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Olivia Susana Norris Represented By Gary S Saunders

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10322


      MARIA DEJESUS ROCHA BELTRAN


      Chapter 13


      #41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/1/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      MARIA DEJESUS ROCHA Represented By Khushwant Sean Singh

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10323


      Carlos Barron


      Chapter 13


      #42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/8/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carlos Barron Represented By Michael D Franco

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10330


      Rachelle Valdepena-Luna


      Chapter 13


      #43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/4/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rachelle Valdepena-Luna Represented By Gary S Saunders

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10367


      Anna Laura Cabigting


      Chapter 13


      #44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Anna Laura Cabigting Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10368


      Elizabeth M. Laird


      Chapter 13


      #45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/15/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Elizabeth M. Laird Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10370


      Jorge Avendano Sosa


      Chapter 13


      #46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jorge Avendano Sosa Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10373


      Luis Alex Perales


      Chapter 13


      #47.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/4/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis Alex Perales Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10391


      Joseph Antonio Alvarado, Jr. and Rachel Alvarado


      Chapter 13


      #48.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Joseph Antonio Alvarado Jr. Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rachel Alvarado Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10401


      Gail Nash


      Chapter 13


      #49.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Gail Nash Represented By

      Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10411


      Lawrence Barrell Hundley, III


      Chapter 13


      #50.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lawrence Barrell Hundley III Represented By Alon Darvish

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10442


      Samantha Martinez


      Chapter 7


      #51.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 2/12/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Samantha Martinez Represented By Kevin T Simon

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10445


      Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


      Chapter 13


      #52.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Abidan Aceves Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Cindy Aceves Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10452


      Charles Lee Dismukes


      Chapter 13


      #53.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Charles Lee Dismukes Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10453


      James Ellsworth Fay and Betty Wing Crosbie


      Chapter 13


      #54.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      James Ellsworth Fay Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Betty Wing Crosbie Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11794


      Fernando Coronel and Maria Coronel


      Chapter 13


      #55.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 150 W. Highland Ave San Bernardino CA 92405


      MOVANT: FERNANDO AND MARIA CORONEL


      EH   


      Docket 16


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/26/2019


      The Court, having reviewed the motion, is inclined to DENY the motion for lack of cause shown and for the reasons stated in the opposition. The Court notes that the motion does not contain the level of detail and specificity required to meet the "clear and convincing" necessary to rebut the presumption of bad faith contained in 11

      U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C). Specifically, the motion does not provide the Court with any detailed information which would enable the Court to assess the relevant changes in Debtor’s financial situation. The Court further notes that while Debtors’ previous case may have been dismissed due to a mistaken understanding of the necessary payments, Creditor obtained relief from stay before dismissal.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Fernando Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Fernando Coronel and Maria Coronel


      Chapter 13

      Fernando Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      Maria Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11911


      Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


      Chapter 13


      #56.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 18057 Longhorn Ln., Chino Hills, CA 91709


      MOVANT: JORGE MANUEL AZMITIA & YOSHIKO AZMITIA


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/28/2019


      The Court, having reviewed the motion, is inclined to DENY the motion for lack of cause shown. The Court notes that the motion does not contain the level of detail and specificity required to meet the "clear and convincing" necessary to rebut the presumption of bad faith contained in 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C). Specifically, the motion does not provide the Court with any detailed information which would enable the Court to assess the relevant changes in Debtor’s financial situation.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Movant(s):

      Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


      Chapter 13

      Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11963


      Pamela M Bradford


      Chapter 13


      #57.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 5744 Alexandria Ave. Corona, CA 9288


      MOVANT: PAMELA M. BRADFORD


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/28/2019


      The Court having reviewed the motion, notice appearing proper and good cause appearing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, IMPOSING the automatic stay as to U.S. Bank, N.A. as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust c/o Rushmore Loan Management Services and Secured Creditor Capital One Auto Finance.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pamela M Bradford Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Movant(s):

      Pamela M Bradford Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-12971


      Patrick Francis Westcott


      Chapter 13


      #58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 158

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      3/8/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Patrick Francis Westcott Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-13829


      Alexis Justine Brooks


      Chapter 13


      #59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 59

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 2/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alexis Justine Brooks Represented By Nima S Vokshori

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-23150


      Vivian Munson


      Chapter 13


      #60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case


      From: 7/23/18, 8/23/18, 10/25/18, 1/31/19, 2/28/19


      EH   


      Docket 218


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Vivian Munson Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-14501


      Vonetta M Mays


      Chapter 13


      #61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 203


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Vonetta M Mays Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-19804


      Juan M Madueno Carrizoza


      Chapter 13


      #62.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency From: 2/28/19

      EH   


      Docket 76


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Juan M Madueno Carrizoza Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-20023


      Zachary Lee Nowak


      Chapter 13


      #63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 110

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Zachary Lee Nowak Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-11872


      Garan Bales


      Chapter 13


      #64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 134

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Garan Bales Represented By

      Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-18430


      Isaias Melo and Rosa Melo


      Chapter 13


      #65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 83

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/12/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Isaias Melo Represented By

      Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rosa Melo Represented By

      Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-18990


      John D Castro, Jr and Jennifer Manda Castro


      Chapter 13


      #66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 85

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John D Castro Jr Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Manda Castro Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-10619


      Scott Patrick Williams and Lisa Ann Williams


      Chapter 13


      #67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 146


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Scott Patrick Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lisa Ann Williams Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-11131


      Bruce Howard Ruggles and Ann Marie Ruggles


      Chapter 13


      #68.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/14/19

      EH   


      Docket 84


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Bruce Howard Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ann Marie Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-14292


      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed


      Chapter 13


      #69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 80


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-14777


      Juanita Francis Casey


      Chapter 13


      #70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 63

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Juanita Francis Casey Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15772


      Annette Leshon Rudd


      Chapter 13


      #71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 56


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Annette Leshon Rudd Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-17806


      Gerald Curtis Collins and Valerie Cecelia Collins


      Chapter 13


      #72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 58


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Gerald Curtis Collins Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Valerie Cecelia Collins Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-18720


      Patricia Morales


      Chapter 13


      #73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 62

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Patricia Morales Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-19614


      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


      Chapter 13


      #74.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 77

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/14/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-10414


      Leonel Villa and Lucila Pineda


      Chapter 13


      #75.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 66


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Leonel Villa Represented By

      Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lucila Pineda Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-10740


      Karin Olaya


      Chapter 13


      #76.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 73

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Karin Olaya Represented By

      Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-10940


      Ruben L Benitez and Christina M Benitez


      Chapter 13


      #77.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19, 3/14/19

      EH   


      Docket 38


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Ruben L Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Christina M Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-11432


      Armando Guzman


      Chapter 13


      #78.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Armando Guzman Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-12447


      Justina Renteria


      Chapter 13


      #79.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Justina Renteria Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-13335


      Annabelle M. Vigil


      Chapter 13


      #80.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/14/19

      EH       


      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-15343


      Jennifer Isabella Solares


      Chapter 13


      #81.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 22


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-16220


      Paul Sheldon Kirkwood


      Chapter 13


      #82.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/12/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Paul Sheldon Kirkwood Represented By Michael E Clark

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17597


      David Meisland


      Chapter 13


      #83.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 36


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      David Meisland Represented By Nima S Vokshori

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17676


      Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez


      Chapter 13


      #84.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 30


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se


      Thursday, April 4, 2019

      Hearing Room

      303


      9:00 AM

      6:19-11794


      Fernando Coronel and Maria Coronel


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 150 W. Highland Ave San Bernardino CA 92405


      MOVANT: FERNANDO AND MARIA CORONEL


      From: 3/28/19 EH   

      Docket 16

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Fernando Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      Movant(s):

      Fernando Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      Maria Coronel Represented By Raymond Perez

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-10782


      Michael Christopher VonPoppen


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Gateway One Lending & Finance, LLC re 2006 Dodge Charger


      EH   


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michael Christopher VonPoppen Represented By

      Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20741


      Frank Stephan Trautmann and Jirapa Trautmann


      Chapter 7


      #2.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Mechanics Bank re 2014 Chevrolet Silverado


      EH   


      Docket 20


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Frank Stephan Trautmann Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jirapa Trautmann Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20539


      Jimmie Dale Montezuma and Jovita Arzate Montezuma


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Ally Bank re 2016 Chevrolet Silverado


      Also #4 & #5 EH   

      Docket 19


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jimmie Dale Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jovita Arzate Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20539


      Jimmie Dale Montezuma and Jovita Arzate Montezuma


      Chapter 7


      #4.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Inland Valley Federal Credit Union re Credit Card Amount $4,170.12


      Also #3 & #5 EH   

      Docket 21


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jimmie Dale Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jovita Arzate Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20539


      Jimmie Dale Montezuma and Jovita Arzate Montezuma


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Inland Valley Federal Credit Union re 2011 Cadillac


      Also #3 & #4 EH   

      Docket 23


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jimmie Dale Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jovita Arzate Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20003


      LC Stahl LLC


      Chapter 11


      #6.00 CONT Motion for Relief from Stay Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. Section 362 (with supporting declarations) (Real Property)


      MOVANT: LOAN FUNDER LLC, SERIES 1829


      From: 2/26/19, 3/5/19 Also #7 - #9

      EH   


      Docket 52


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      LC Stahl LLC Represented By

      Stuart J Wald

      Movant(s):

      Loan Funder LLC, Series 1829 Represented By Jeffrey N Brown

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20003


      LC Stahl LLC


      Chapter 11


      #7.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim by Claimant Loan Funder LLC Also #6 - #9

      EH   


      Docket 74

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/10/2019

      BACKGROUND:


      On November 27, 2018, LC Stahl LLC ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On December 6, 2018, Debtor’s case was dismissed for failure to file case commencement documents. On December 11, 2018, the dismissal order was vacated.


      On December 17, 2018, the Court approved the application of Lauren Newman to appear pro hace vice on behalf of Loan Funder, LLC Series 1829 ("Creditor"). On February 27, 2019, the Court approved the application of Stuart Wald to serve as bankruptcy counsel for Debtor.


      On March 15, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $1,320,655.61 ("Claim 5"). Prior to Claim 5 even having been filed, Debtor filed a objection to Creditor’s claim. Given that the claim objection was filed prematurely, the objection is deficient in several technical respects, including: (1) the claim objection does not list the claim number; (2) the claim objection was not served to the

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      LC Stahl LLC


      Chapter 11

      address specified in Claim 5; and (3) while the claim objection was set for hearing on thirty days’ notice, only twenty-six days have passed since Claim 5 was even filed.

      Nevertheless, on March 27, 2019, Creditor filed its opposition.


      The primary basis of Debtor’s objection is that the underlying note is usurious and, therefore, all interest charged by Creditor should be disallowed. Creditor’s opposition asserts that New York law is the governing law and that the note underlying Claim 5 is not usurious under New York law.


      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      LC Stahl LLC


      Chapter 11

      Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:


      I. Usury


      "In a bankruptcy case, the court must apply federal choice of law rules. Federal choice of law rules follow the approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws." In re Vortex Fishing Sys., Inc., 277 F.3d 1057, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002). The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (the "Restatement") § 187 provides that the contractual choice of law provision is effective unless either one of two conditions are met:


      1. the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties’ choice, or


      2. application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and which, under the rule of § 188, would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties.


        Here, section 7.12 of the loan agreement identifies New York law as the governing law. Because the loan agreement identifies Creditor’s principal place of business as

        10:00 AM

        CONT...


        LC Stahl LLC


        Chapter 11

        being in New York, it would appear New York has a substantial relationship to Creditor, satisfying subsection (a). See, e.g., the Restatement, cmt. f. ("When the state of the chosen law has some substantial relationship to the parties or the contract, the parties will be held to have had a reasonable basis for their choice. This will be the case, for example, when this state is that where performance by one of the parties is to take place or where one of the parties is domiciled or has his principal place of business.").


        The application of subsection (b), however, is less clear, but it does not appear to compel the choice of California law. First, it is uncertain whether California would be the "state of applicable law under the rule of § 188." The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188(3) provides a default rule: "If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in the same state, the local law of this state will usually be applied." This default rule, to some extent, is subject to § 188(2), which enumerates five factors for the Court to consider when determining the contract’s contacts with specific states: (1) the place of contracting; (2) the place of negotiation of the contract; (3) the place of performance; (4) the location of the subject matter of the contract; and (5) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties. Section 7.13 of the loan agreement evidences the parties’ agreement that the agreement was negotiated and formed in New York, and that performance would occur in New York. Therefore, section 188(3) would create a presumption that the law applicable in the absence of an effective choice by the parties would be the law of New York; it is not clear that the factors enumerated in § 188(2) compel a different result.


        Second, even if California were properly to provide the applicable law under Restatement § 188, this Court cannot conclude that California has a "materially greater interest" than New York in the resolution of this issue. For instance, in Shannon-Vail Five, Inc. v. Busch, 270 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit upheld the contractual choice of the law of Nevada – where there was no usury law in place – despite the plaintiff-borrowers being residents of California, and taking out loans for development of real estate located in California. While in Shannon-Vail Five, the defendants were citizens of Nevada, and, in this case, Creditor is

        10:00 AM

        CONT...


        LC Stahl LLC


        Chapter 11

        incorporated in Delaware, with a principal place of business in New York, the effective interest in Shannon-Vail Five was more than double the effective interest rate here. See id. Reviewing the four applicable Restatement provisions -- §§ 187, 188, 195, and 203 – the Ninth Circuit concluded that "the invalidating power of the ‘unless’ clause of § 195 should thus be limited to situations where the location of repayment is selected solely to circumvent a state’s usury laws, or when the place of repayment otherwise has a very tangential relationship to the contract." The Ninth Circuit also rejected the contention that California’s fundamental policy against usury should invalidate the choice of law provision: "But the lack of a usury law does not mean that Nevada has a less substantial concern than California about interest rates; rather, it appears to reflect a choice to favor individual contract decisions and the free flow of capital."


        Debtor has not provided legal argumentation sufficient to distinguish the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Shannon-Vail Five; indeed, the only two cases cited by Debtor are cases where the contractual choice of law provision was upheld. Given the relative similarity between the facts of this case and the facts of Shannon-Vail Five, and the high showing necessary to invalidate a contractual choice of law provision under the Ninth Circuit precedent and the Restatement, the Court is inclined to conclude that New York law applies to determine whether the instant contract is usurious.


        Applying New York law, Creditor argues that N.Y. GEN. OBLIG. LAW § 1104 precludes a limited liability company from raising a usury defense. Notwithstanding Creditor’s inaccurate statutory citation, it does appear that such a restriction is contained in N.Y. LTD. LIAB. CO. LAW § 1104(a). N.Y. LTD. LIAB. CO. LAW § 1104(b), does, however,

        provides an exception:


        The provisions of subdivision (a) of this section shall not apply to a domestic or foreign limited liability company, the principal asset of which is the ownership of a one or two family dwelling, where it appears either that such limited liability company was formed, or that the controlling interest therein was acquired, within a period of six months prior to the execution by such limited liability company of a bond or a note evidencing indebtedness, and a mortgage creating a lien for such

        10:00 AM

        CONT...


        LC Stahl LLC

        indebtedness on such one or two family dwelling.


        Chapter 11



        While it is not clear, it does not appear that this exception is applicable to the instant situation. Similarly, while N.Y. GEN. OBLIG. LAW § 5-501(6)(a) provides that usury only has limited applications to loans of $250,000 or more, there is also an exception for loans secured by a family residence.


        More importantly, Creditor also argues that, under New York law, usury laws do not apply to defaulted obligations. See, e.g., Urban Commc’n PCS Ltd. P’ship v. Gabriel Capital, L.P., 394 B.R. 325, 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The Court agrees with this contention. Therefore, if the contractual rate of interest was below the threshold for usury, but the defaulted rate of interest exceeds the threshold for usury, then a defense of usury is unavailable. None of the declarations or briefs actually contain a statement of the contractual rate of interest. A review of the exhibits attached to the declaration of Maskim Stavinsky makes clear that the contractual rate of interest was 10%. Debtor has argued that the effective interest rate, once certain fees are added, was approximately 13%. Either way, the New York threshold for usury is 16%. See N.Y. GEN. OBLIG. LAW § 5-501. Therefore, under New York law, the note securing Claim 5 is not usurious.


        TENTATIVE RULING


        Because the effective rate of interest was not usurious under New York law, and because an increased interest rate triggered by a default cannot render a loan agreement usurious, the Court is inclined to OVERRULE the objection.


        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        LC Stahl LLC Represented By

        Stuart J Wald

        10:00 AM

        CONT...

        Movant(s):


        LC Stahl LLC


        Chapter 11

        LC Stahl LLC Represented By

        Stuart J Wald

        10:00 AM

        6:18-20003


        LC Stahl LLC


        Chapter 11


        #8.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report

        (HOLDING DATE)


        From: 1/8/19, 2/26/19, 3/5/19 Also #6 - #9

        EH       


        Docket 8


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        LC Stahl LLC Represented By

        Stuart J Wald

        11:00 AM

        6:18-20003


        LC Stahl LLC


        Chapter 11


        #9.00 Motion to Approve Compromise Under Rule 9019 Also #6 - #8

        EH   


        Docket 70


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        LC Stahl LLC Represented By

        Stuart J Wald

        Movant(s):

        LC Stahl LLC Represented By

        Stuart J Wald

        11:00 AM

        6:18-17431


        James Michael Gorman


        Chapter 7


        #10.00 Motion for extension of time to file a complaint objecting to discharge EH   

        Docket 19

        Tentative Ruling:

        4/10/2019

        BACKGROUND


        On August 31, 2018, James Gorman ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. The meeting of creditors was originally set for October 3, 2018. On November 30, 2018, UST filed a motion for an extension of time to file a complaint objecting to discharge. On February 1, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the motion and extending the deadline to object to discharge until February 28, 2019.


        On February 27, 2019, UST filed another motion for an extension of time to file a complaint objecting to discharge. UST asserts that Debtor has connections to several business entities which were involved in prepetition litigation, and that in such litigation, judgment creditors raised allegations that Debtor had concealed assets and engaged in other sanctionable conduct. UST further asserts that Debtor has not cooperated fully with UST’s requests for financial records despite repeated contact from UST’s office.


        DISCUSSION

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        James Michael Gorman


        Chapter 7

        FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(a) states:


        1. In a chapter 7 case, a complaint, or a motion under § 727(a)(8) or (9) of the Code, objecting to the debtor’s discharge shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a). In a chapter 11 case, the complaint shall be filed no later than the first date set for the hearing on confirmation. In a chapter 13 case, a motion objecting to the debtor’s discharge under § 1328(f) shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a). At least 28 days’ notice of the time so fixed shall be given to the United States trustee and all creditors as provided in Rule 2002(f) and (k) and to the trustee and the trustee’s attorney.


      And FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(b) states:


      1. On motion of any party in interest, after notice and hearing, the court may for cause extend the time to object to discharge. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2), the motion shall be filed before the time has expired.

      2. A motion to extent the time to object to discharge may be filed after the time for objection has expired and before discharge is granted if (A) the objection is based on facts that, if learned after the discharge, would provide a basis for revocation under § 727(d) of the Code, and (B) the movant did not have knowledge of those facts in time to permit an objection. The motion shall be filed promptly after the movant discovers the facts on which the objection is based.


      Here, the delay in providing information necessary to assess the financial circumstances and prepetition conduct of Debtor constitutes sufficient cause to extend the deadline. See COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 4004.03[2] (16th ed. 2013) ("A debtor’s delays in responding to discovery may be sufficient cause. Obviously, a delay in the meeting of creditors to a date close to or after the deadline may constitute such cause.") (citing In re McCormack, 244 B.R. 203 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2000)).

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      James Michael Gorman


      Chapter 7

      Moreover, Debtor’s failure to oppose may be deemed consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion and EXTEND the deadline to file an objection to discharge until May 31, 2019.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      James Michael Gorman Represented By Timothy W Combs

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By Everett L Green

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17177


      Julie Lynn Salazar


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 CONT Application to Employ BHHS Perrie Mundy Realty Group as Real Estate Broker / Agent Declaration of Perrie Mundy in support


      From: 1/30/19 Also #12 & #13 EH   

      Docket 27


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Movant(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17177


      Julie Lynn Salazar


      Chapter 7


      #12.00 CONT Motion for Objection to Claim of Exemptions by Debtor, Julie Lynn Salazar


      From: 1/16/19, 1/30/19 Also #11 & #13

      EH   


      Docket 30


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Movant(s):

      Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17177


      Julie Lynn Salazar


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 CONT Motion by Chapter 7 Trustee for Order Approving Equity Buy Back Agreement


      From: 12/5/18, 1/30/19 Also #11 & #12

      EH   


      Docket 24


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Movant(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17177


      Julie Lynn Salazar


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01231 Winegardner Masonry, Inc. v. Salazar


      #14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01231. Complaint by Winegardner Masonry, Inc. against Julie Lynn Salazar. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e)))


      From: 1/30/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Defendant(s):

      Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Plaintiff(s):

      Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

      11:00 AM

      6:18-12625


      Harold Roy Williams and Alice Gwendolyn Williams


      Chapter 7


      #15.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 34


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/10/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $ 625.00 Trustee Expenses: $ 150.74


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Harold Roy Williams Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Alice Gwendolyn Williams Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-19155


      William Reid Anderson


      Chapter 7


      #16.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 36


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/10/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $ 1,293.97 Trustee Expenses: $ 107.35


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      William Reid Anderson Represented By

      C Scott Rudibaugh

      Trustee(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:10-11814


      Scott Leon Bosco and Karen Lee Bosco


      Chapter 7


      #17.00 CONT Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation From: 12/5/18, 12/11/18, 2/6/19

      EH   


      Docket 41


      Tentative Ruling:

      12/11/2018

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      11 U.S.C. § 326(a) states:


      In a case under chapter 7 or 11, the court may allow reasonable compensation under section 330 of this title of the trustee for the trustee’s services, payable after the trustee renders such services, not to exceed 25 percent on the first

      $5,000 or less, 10 percent on any amount in excess of $5,000 but not in excess of $50,000, 5 percent on any amount in excess of $50,000 but not in excess of

      $1,000,000, and reasonable compensation not to exceed 3 percent of any moneys in excess of $1,000,000, upon all moneys disbursed or turned over in the case by the trustee to parties in interest, excluding the debtor, but including holders of secured claims.


      (emphasis added).


      Trustee is basing his requested compensation in this case on $185,000 in "receipts," but that amount includes $72,908.11 paid to Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC which does not appear properly categorized as a receipt because these moneys were not, at any time, held or administered by Trustee, let alone received by Trustee, or disbursed by Trustee. Specifically, paragraph 8 of the motion to approve settlement [Dkt. No. 2] indicates that the costs and expenses of certain status litigation were to be paid directly by the settlement fund trustee, and only the remaining funds would

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Scott Leon Bosco and Karen Lee Bosco


      Chapter 7

      actually be received by the Chapter 7 Trustee. To wit:


      Subject to the terms of the settlement being satisfied, the balance of the remaining settlement proceeds, after the Settlement Fund Trustee pays and/or withholds the necessary expenses, fees, costs, holdbacks, and deductions from the Gross Settlement Amount, anticipated to be in the amount of $97,897.75 (the "Remaining Proceeds") shall be disbursed from the Settlement Fund Trustee to the Trustee.


      Not only are the requested fees simply incompatible with the plain language of the statute, which calculates fees based on moneys disbursed or turned over by the trustee, the fees cannot be reasonably justified on policy grounds. In this case, the state court counsel incurred significant legal fees litigating a state court matter while the instant bankruptcy was closed. The state court counsel’s work on this matter was, in no matter whatsoever, related to the administration of the bankruptcy estate, and Trustee did not participate in, direct, or even have an awareness of the fees incurred. Case law notes that important distinction:


      The reported decisions construing section 326(a) have recognized a distinction between funds that are constructively received and funds that are actually received. These cases stand for the proposition that a commission can only be calculated upon the funds actually received by the trustee. In this particular case, the trustee never received any settlement proceeds that were paid directly to the debtor’s personal injury counsel in fees and expenses or to the worker’s compensation carrier.


      In re Guido, 237 B.R. 562, 564-65 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1999) (citations omitted); see also Kandel v. Alexander Leasing Corp., 107 B.R. 548 (N.D. Ohio 1988) (proceeds of settlement were not "money disbursed" where the trustee cannot point to any time at which the moneys actually passed through his hands); In re New England Fish Co., 34

      B.R. 899, 902 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1983) ("[I]n view of the majority of the cases under prior law and the plain and unambiguous wording of section 326(a), this Court concludes that the trustee’s compensation must be based on actual monies disbursed

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Scott Leon Bosco and Karen Lee Bosco


      Chapter 7

      to parties in interest, and not on assets or settlements which can be construed as a constructive disbursement.").


      In light of the foregoing, the Court is inclined to reduce the basis upon which Trustee’s statutory fee is calculated, eliminating those amounts which were at no time administered, held, received, or disbursed by Trustee. The remaining cognizable disbursements appear to be a bank service fee of $117.34, Trustee’s expenses in the amount of $778.22, and payments to creditors in the amount of $4,027.61, for an aggregate amount of $4,923.17. Therefore, the Court is inclined to approve Trustee’s fees in the reduced amount of $1,230.79. The Court has reviewed the itemized expenses filed by Trustee, and finding them reasonable, the Court is inclined to approve the expenses in the amount of $778.22


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED. If Applicant submits on the tentative, Applicant’s appearance is waived.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Scott Leon Bosco Represented By Richard H Travis Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Karen Lee Bosco Represented By Richard H Travis Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Justin Witkin

      11:00 AM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #18.00 Hearing RE: [426] Declaration of Steven F. Werth Regarding Emergency EH   

      Docket 426


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

      11:00 AM

      6:09-37653


      Debi Jo Killian


      Chapter 7


      #19.00 CONT Motion for Order Confirming Personal Injury Award is Exempt and Not Part of Bankruptcy Estate


      From: 1/9/19 EH       

      Docket 21

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/5/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Debi Jo Killian Represented By Gregory J Doan

      Michael H Raichelson

      Movant(s):

      Debi Jo Killian Represented By Gregory J Doan

      Michael H Raichelson

      Trustee(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By

      Michelle A Marchisotto

      2:00 PM

      6:18-20477


      Connie Gutierrez


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:19-01028 Whitmore v. Gutierrez et al


      #20.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01028. Complaint by Robert

      S. Whitmore against Daniel Gutierrez, Toby Gutierrez. (Charge To Estate). (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet # 2 Summons and Notice of Status Conference) Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))

      (Main case dismissed 4/1/19)


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Connie Gutierrez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      Defendant(s):

      Daniel Gutierrez Represented By Lane K Bogard

      Toby Gutierrez Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Julie Philippi

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

      2:00 PM

      6:18-17730


      Sally Jeanne Way


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01238 Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation


      #21.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01238. Complaint by Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation. (Charge To Estate). Verified Complaint for: 1) Quiet Title; 2) Cancellation of Instrument; and 3) Declaratory Relief Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Iskander, Brandon)


      From: 2/6/19, 3/13/19 EH   

      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/10/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sally Jeanne Way Represented By Summer M Shaw

      Defendant(s):

      Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Brandon J Iskander

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

      2:00 PM

      6:18-12282


      Frank Javier Valderrama


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01141 Carrillo v. Valderrama


      #22.00 Status Conference RE: [36] Amended Complaint THIRD by John F Bazan on behalf of Jose Carrillo against Jose Carrillo. (Bazan, John)


      EH   


      Docket 36


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

      Defendant(s):

      Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

      Plaintiff(s):

      Jose Carrillo Represented By

      John F Bazan

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:18-12027


      Richard M. Thomas


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


      #23.00 CONT Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants Amy Williams and Richard M. Thomas, Jr


      From: 11/7/18, 12/12/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19


      Also #24 EH   

      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      Given the Court’s ruling on the MSA, the MDJ is conditionally moot as to Defendant Amy. As to Richard Jr., the motion was served on Richard Jr. at the Property. The motion for default judgment, however, contends that Richard Jr. does not have any equitable ownership in the Property. While residency is not clear from the motion, the motion specifically states "[t]he Trustee believes that Defendant Thomas is not currently residing in the Subject Property." The Court also notes that at various points in the motion, Trustee has confused the identity of Richard III and Richard Jr. For instance, paragraph 2 of the declaration states: "The debtor Richard M. Thomas aka Richard M. Thomas, Jr. initiated this Bankruptcy case by filing a voluntary petition" when, in fact, it was Richard III, not Richard Jr., who filed bankruptcy. Given this apparent confusion, and Trustee’s explicit contention that Richard Jr. is not residing at the Property, the Court will require further service on Richard Jr. or clear evidence establishing that service was proper.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Richard M. Thomas


      Chapter 7

      Defendant(s):

      Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

      Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      Movant(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Frank X Ruggier

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Frank X Ruggier

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

      2:00 PM

      6:18-12027


      Richard M. Thomas


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


      #24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01156. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Amy Williams, Richard M Thomas Jr.. (Charge To Estate) ($350.00). Complaint to: (1) Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfer; (2) Obtain Declaratory Relief as to Ownership of Real Property; and (3) Authorize Sale of Property Owned in Part by Non-Debtor Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer))


      From: 9/26/18, 11/7/18, 12/12/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19


      Also #23 EH       

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      Defendant(s):

      Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

      Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Richard M. Thomas


      Chapter 7

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Frank X Ruggier

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

      2:00 PM

      6:16-15813


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01138 Speier v. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC et al


      #25.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01138. Complaint by Steven M Speier against Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC, Conestoga International Holdings, LLC, Conestoga Trust, Provident Trust Group, LLC, De Leon & Washburh, P.C., Thomas Washburn, Hector De Leon, Jeff Converse, Michael Woods, Michael McDermott. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Rescission and Restitution for Fraud; (3) Money Had and Received; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Fraud; (6) Negligent Representation; (7) Negligence; (8) Rescission and Restitution for Sale of Unqualified Securities [Cal. Corp. §25503]; (9) Damages for Sale of Unqualified Securities [Cal. Corp. §25503]; (10) Rescission: Securities: Misrepresentation [Cal. Corp. §25501]; (11) Damages: Securities: Misrepresentation [Cal. Corp. § 25501]; (12) Contempt for Willful Violation of Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11

      U.S.C. § 105; and (13) Elder Financial Abuse [Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.] Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Eastmond, Thomas)


      From: 8/29/18, 11/28/18, 1/9/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John E. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

      Defendant(s):

      Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC Represented By

      Charles Miller

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      Conestoga International Holdings, Represented By

      Charles Miller

      Conestoga Trust Represented By Charles Miller

      Provident Trust Group, LLC Represented By Marshall J Hogan

      De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

      Thomas Washburn Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

      Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

      Jeff Converse Pro Se

      Michael Woods Pro Se

      Michael McDermott Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ellen O. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

      Plaintiff(s):

      Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

      Thomas J Eastmond

      2:00 PM

      6:17-15816


      Integrated Wealth Management Inc


      Chapter 11


      #26.00 CONT Post Confirmation Status Conference From: 10/23/18

      EH   


      Docket 277


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Integrated Wealth Management Inc Represented By

      Andrew B Levin Robert E Opera Jim D Bauch

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #27.00 CONT First Omnibus Objection of Debtor-In-Possession Allied Injury Management, Inc. Seeking Disallowance of Certain Proofs of Claim (Holding Date)


      From: 11/8/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 3/7/17,4/4/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

      11/27/18, 2/26/19


      Also #28 EH   

      Docket 83


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Movant(s):

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #28.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 6/7/16, 8/30/16, 9/14/16, 10/20/16, 10/25/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

      11/27/18, 2/26/19


      Also #27 EH   

      Docket 7


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:16-01225 Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC v. Allied Injury Management,


      #29.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC against Allied Injury Management, Inc., John C. Larson. 02 - Other e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 11/1/16, 12/6/16, 1/31/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 10/3/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Defendant(s):

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      John C. Larson Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Cambridge Medical Funding Group Represented By

      Kenneth Hennesay

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


      Chapter 11

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:16-01279 Allied Injury Management, Inc. v. One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group


      #30.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01279. Complaint by Allied Injury Management, Inc. against One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group & Therapy, Inc., One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group, Inc., Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Group, Inc.. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; and (3) Unjust Enrichment Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


      From: 1/24/17, 3/7/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Defendant(s):

      One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

      Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

      One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

      Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

      Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Represented By

      Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Plaintiff(s):

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:18-01109 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Titanium Resource Company,


      #31.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 - preference,13 Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


      From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Defendant(s):

      Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a Represented By

      Alan W Forsley

      Plaintiff(s):

      David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


      Chapter 11

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:18-01110 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Larson, D.C., an individual


      #32.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against John Larson, D.C., an individual. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers, Avoidance of Improper Distributions, and Unjust Enrichment and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13- Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


      From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Defendant(s):

      John Larson, D.C., an individual Represented By

      Alan W Forsley

      Plaintiff(s):

      David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


      Chapter 11

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:18-01113 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Netreva, Inc., a California


      #33.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01113. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Netreva, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


      From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Defendant(s):

      Netreva, Inc., a California Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

      Plaintiff(s):

      David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

      Trustee(s):

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


      Chapter 11

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


      #34.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01111. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Werth, Steven)


      From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19


      Also #35 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Defendant(s):

      American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Mark S Horoupian


      Chapter 11

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

      2:00 PM

      6:16-14273


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


      #35.00 CONT Status Conference RE: 3rd Party Complaint [4] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, and Third-Party Claim Against John C. Larson, Third-Party Complaint by American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express against John C. Larson


      From: 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19 Also #34

      EH   


      Docket 4


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

      Defendant(s):

      American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Allied Injury Management, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

      11:00 AM

      6:13-18779


      Rigoberto Baez


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 CONT Motion For Order Denying Discharge Or Dismissing Case From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19, 3/14/19

      EH   


      Docket 172

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rigoberto Baez Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:15-20006


      Carl J Charlot and Jacinta S Charlot


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


      EH   


      Docket 84

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carl J Charlot Represented By

      Michael A Younge

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jacinta S Charlot Represented By Michael A Younge

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-12118


      Veronica A Mendoza


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 Application for Compensation for Stephen S Smyth, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/11/2019 to 2/4/2019, Fee: $350.00, Expenses: $0.00.


      EH   


      Docket 64

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Veronica A Mendoza Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

      Movant(s):

      Veronica A Mendoza Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-19614

      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta

      Chapter 13

      #4.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

      EH   

      Docket 67

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Movant(s):

      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-10940


      Ruben L Benitez and Christina M Benitez


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


      Also #6 EH   

      Docket 41

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ruben L Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Christina M Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

      Movant(s):

      Ruben L Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple Sundee M Teeple Sundee M Teeple

      Christina M Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple Sundee M Teeple Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-10940


      Ruben L Benitez and Christina M Benitez


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19, 3/14/19, 3/29/19

      Also #5 EH   

      Docket 38

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ruben L Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Christina M Benitez Represented By Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13481

      Rorye James Mosley, Sr.

      Chapter 13

      #7.00 CONT Motion to Reconsider (related documents 30 Motion for Relief from Stay - Real Property)

      From: 3/14/19 EH   

      Docket 44

      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/22/19

      Party Information

      Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Movant(s):

      Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13793

      Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno

      Chapter 13

      #8.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

      From: 3/28/19 EH   

      Docket 47

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Movant(s):

      Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-15766


      Deborah A Neville and Ronnie L Neville


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 Stipulation regarding modifying plan EH   

      Docket 63

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Deborah A Neville Represented By Hayk Grigoryan

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ronnie L Neville Represented By Hayk Grigoryan

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18551


      Robert Heck


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

      Docket 45

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Robert Heck Represented By

      John M Boyko

      Movant(s):

      Robert Heck Represented By

      John M Boyko John M Boyko

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18809


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13


      #11.00 CONT Motion Re: Objection to Claim Number 3 by Claimant IRS From: 1/10/19, 2/7/19, 3/28/19

      Also #12 EH   

      Docket 28

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Movant(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18809

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann

      Chapter 13

      #12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 12/20/18, 1/10/19, 2/7/19, 3/28/19 Also #11

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-19196


      Sheila Rosales Manabat


      Chapter 13


      #13.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/10/19, 2/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sheila Rosales Manabat Represented By John A Varley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-19494


      Rachel Ann Sullivan


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 3 by Claimant CACH, LLC EH   

      Docket 25

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rachel Ann Sullivan Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Movant(s):

      Rachel Ann Sullivan Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20002

      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes

      Chapter 13

      #15.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/7/19, 2/28/19, 3/28/19 EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20238


      Efrain Padron


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 Motion to strike


      Also #17 & #18 EH   

      Docket 39

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

      Abram Feuerstein esq

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20238


      Efrain Padron


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 Motion To Disgorge Compensation Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 329 Also #16 & #18

      EH   


      Docket 40

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

      Abram Feuerstein esq

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20238


      Efrain Padron


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19, 3/14/19

      Also #16 & #17 EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20274


      Robert Townsend


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 1 by Claimant Santander Consumer USA Inc..


      From: 3/14/19 Also #20

      EH   


      Docket 25

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Robert Townsend Represented By

      David A Akintimoye

      Movant(s):

      Robert Townsend Represented By

      David A Akintimoye

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20274


      Robert Townsend


      Chapter 13


      #20.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 3/14/19

      Also #19 EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Robert Townsend Represented By

      David A Akintimoye

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10036


      Erlwin Williams


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/14/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Erlwin Williams Represented By Laleh Ensafi

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10243


      Claudia Elena Arevalos


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Claudia Elena Arevalos Represented By Robert L Firth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10415


      Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10479


      April Jean Fernandez


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/8/19

      Party Information

      April Jean Fernandez Represented By Richard G Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10484


      Xavier C. Luna


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Xavier C. Luna Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10486


      Nagazaki Lung and Veronica Lung


      Chapter 13


      #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nagazaki Lung Represented By Nathan Fransen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Veronica Lung Represented By Nathan Fransen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10509


      Terence J Gillespie


      Chapter 13


      #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Terence J Gillespie Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10531


      Kimberly A Hardcastle


      Chapter 13


      #28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kimberly A Hardcastle Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10553


      Charles Cuevas and Paula Cuevas


      Chapter 13


      #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/21/19

      Party Information

      Charles Cuevas Represented By Anerio V Altman

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Paula Cuevas Represented By

      Anerio V Altman

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10557


      Carl John Larson, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carl John Larson Jr. Represented By Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10564


      Fermisa Ong Yang


      Chapter 13


      #31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Fermisa Ong Yang Represented By Ivan Trahan

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10599


      Robert G Alston


      Chapter 13


      #32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Robert G Alston Represented By Michael R Totaro

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10625


      Lucenia Esther Ortiz


      Chapter 13


      #33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/12/19

      Party Information

      Lucenia Esther Ortiz Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11298


      Zahra Booeshagi


      Chapter 13


      #34.00 Motion For Sanctions/Disgorgement Notice of Motion and Motion For Order Compelling Attorney To File Disclosure Of Compensation Pursuant To U.S.C. 329 And Federal Rule Of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016


      CASE DISMISSED 2/26/19


      EH   


      Docket 14

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Zahra Booeshagi Represented By Dennis C. Winters

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

      Abram Feuerstein esq

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11371


      Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


      Chapter 13


      #35.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 1) 8893 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, 2) 2006 Ford F-150


      MOVANT: WARREN ALAN HALL AND KELLY SUZANNE HALL


      From: 3/14/19, 3/21/19 EH   

      Docket 15

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Movant(s):

      Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11975


      Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer


      Chapter 13


      #36.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

      Docket 16

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer Represented By Sunjay Bhatia

      Movant(s):

      Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer Represented By Sunjay Bhatia

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-12079

      Nora Munoz

      Chapter 13


      #37.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 939 Herrington Ave, San Bernardino CA 92411


      MOVANT: NORA MUNOZ


      EH   


      Docket 9

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nora Munoz Represented By

      William Radcliffe

      Movant(s):

      Nora Munoz Represented By

      William Radcliffe

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-13931


      Annie Estrada


      Chapter 13


      #38.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency From: 2/28/19, 3/14/19

      EH   


      Docket 118

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-19520

      Jeffrey B Jordan

      Chapter 13

      #39.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 55

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jeffrey B Jordan Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-24366

      Alan G Olsen and Pamela J Olsen

      Chapter 13

      #40.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 131

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alan G Olsen Represented By

      Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Pamela J Olsen Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-24888

      Jesus Padilla Simental

      Chapter 13

      #41.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 86

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/25/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-12404

      Anthony E Turkson

      Chapter 13

      #42.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 180

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Anthony E Turkson Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-14835

      Bennea Cynthia Travis

      Chapter 13

      #43.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/14/19

      EH       

      Docket 94

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Bennea Cynthia Travis Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-10385

      Adolfo Gonzalez and Angelica Gonzalez

      Chapter 13

      #44.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 93

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adolfo Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Angelica Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-11622

      Johnny Vera

      Chapter 13

      #45.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 42

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Johnny Vera Represented By

      Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-15304

      Fabiola Puttre

      Chapter 13

      #46.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 82

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Fabiola Puttre Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-21234

      Frank A Horzen and Barbara A Horzen

      Chapter 13

      #47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 117

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Frank A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Barbara A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-21236

      Ronald A Waters and Trisha Waters

      Chapter 13

      #48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 70

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ronald A Waters Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Trisha Waters Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-11167

      Victor Thomas Lawton

      Chapter 13

      #49.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 2/28/19, 3/14/19, 3/28/19

      EH   

      Docket 45

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-14292

      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed

      Chapter 13

      #50.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19

      EH   

      Docket 80

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-17589

      Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh

      Chapter 13

      #51.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/14/19

      EH   

      Docket 69

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-19739

      Wasantha K. Leonidas

      Chapter 13

      #52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 42

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Wasantha K. Leonidas Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-20240


      Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


      Chapter 13


      #53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 34

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Natona Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Tameiko Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-20487

      Ann Marie Smith

      Chapter 13

      #54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 72

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-10112

      Eddie Garcia and Martha Garcia

      Chapter 13

      #55.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 56

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Eddie Garcia Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Martha Garcia Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-10636

      Alejandro J. Casillas and Patricia Casillas

      Chapter 13

      #56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 39

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alejandro J. Casillas Represented By Tina H Trinh

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Patricia Casillas Represented By Tina H Trinh

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-11432

      Armando Guzman

      Chapter 13

      #57.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19

      EH   

      Docket 37

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Armando Guzman Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-11532

      Marsha Elizabeth Hall

      Chapter 13

      #58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marsha Elizabeth Hall Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-14949

      Alice Chow

      Chapter 13

      #59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 31

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alice Chow Represented By

      Andrew Nguyen

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-15343


      Jennifer Isabella Solares


      Chapter 13


      #60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19

      EH   


      Docket 22

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-15617

      Juan Vargas and Anabely E Vargas

      Chapter 13

      #61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 54

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Juan Vargas Represented By

      Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anabely E Vargas Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17735


      Carlos Garcia


      Chapter 13


      #62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 34

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carlos Garcia Represented By John F Brady

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17784


      David John Stoykovich, Jr. and Merlina Lynn Burton


      Chapter 13


      #63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 30

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David John Stoykovich Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Merlina Lynn Burton Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:15-14687

      Vernia Jean Mosby

      Chapter 13


      #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11582 Holly Oak Dr, Fontana, California 92337


      MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


      From: 2/26/19, 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 111


      Tentative Ruling:

      2/26/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Vernia Jean Mosby Represented By Nancy Korompis

      Movant(s):

      Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

      Arnold L Graff Joseph C Delmotte Gilbert R Yabes

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Vernia Jean Mosby


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:15-19930


      Melinda Kay Allen


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 CONT Amended Motion (related document(s): 60 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11139 Laurel Ave., Bloomington CA 92316 . filed by Creditor US Bank Trust National Association as Trustee of IGSC Series II Trust) (Zilberstein, Kristin)


      MOVANT: US BANK TRUST NA


      From: 1/15/19, 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 62


      Tentative Ruling:

      01/15/2019

      Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


      The Debtor, after seemingly failing to make payments to Movant for several months, now seeks a continuance based on a loan modification request that she has not yet submitted for review. The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for termination of the co-debtor stay based on lack of service on any co-debtor and lack of evidence as to identity of alleged co-debtor. GRANT request under ¶3. DENY request for APO as moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Melinda Kay Allen Represented By Steven A Alpert

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Melinda Kay Allen


      Chapter 13

      US Bank Trust National Association Represented By

      Kristin A Zilberstein Michelle R Ghidotti

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:16-16909


      Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 9617 Surrey Ave, Montclair, California 91763


      MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      From: 1/29/19, 2/26/19, 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 234

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      1/29/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Edward Edmund Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Georgia Parrilla Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


      Chapter 13

      Wells Fargo BAnk, N.A. Represented By April Harriott Sean C Ferry

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-14312


      John C. Macias


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13411 Golden Sand Ave., Victorville, CA 92392


      MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK, A FEDERALLY CHARTERED SAVINGS ASSOCIATION


      EH   


      Docket 33

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John C. Macias Represented By Raymond Obiamalu

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      John C. Macias


      Chapter 13

      MidFirst Bank Represented By Josephine E Salmon Darlene C Vigil Gilbert R Yabes

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-16255


      Chad Priest Construction, Inc.,


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Ram 4X2 RG VIN# 3C6JR6DG5GG239688


      MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.


      EH   


      Docket 48

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Chad Priest Construction, Inc., Represented By Jonathan R Preston

      Movant(s):

      JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Represented By

      Gilbert R Yabes

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Chad Priest Construction, Inc.,


      Chapter 7

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert A Hessling

      10:00 AM

      6:17-20147


      Gilbert Richard Enriquez and Lisa Lynn Enriquez


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13470 Preciado Avenue, Chino, CA 91710


      MOVANT: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


      EH   


      Docket 47

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/15/19

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING


      April 16, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.

      While there may be some dispute as to the amount of post-confirmation arrears, Debtors concede that they are in default. Creditor and Debtor are to apprise the Court of any reconciliation of the amount of arrears, and the status of adequate protection discussions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gilbert Richard Enriquez Represented By

      Raj T Wadhwani

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lisa Lynn Enriquez Represented By

      Raj T Wadhwani

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Gilbert Richard Enriquez and Lisa Lynn Enriquez


      Chapter 13

      The Bank of New York Mellon as Represented By

      Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-10248


      Vaughn Stevens


      Chapter 13


      #7.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 79706 Parkway Esplanade South, La Quinta, CA 92253


      MOVANT: CHARLES W. MORGAN REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST


      From: 3/5/19 EH       

      Docket 46

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/29/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Due to dismissal of the case, and the termination of the automatic stay, this motion is DENIED as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Vaughn Stevens Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

      Movant(s):

      Charles W. Morgan Revocable Represented By Caroline Djang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-11890


      Rogelio Ramos and Maria Escobar


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 17708 Seville Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335


      MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


      EH   


      Docket 39

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      4/2/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rogelio Ramos Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Escobar Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Movant(s):

      Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Sean C Ferry Eric P Enciso

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-12822


      Cynthia Miller


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15036 Daffodil Circle, Fontana, CA 92336


      MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


      From: 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 42


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/26/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Late


      Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions, if any.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Cynthia Miller Represented By Richard L Barrett

      Movant(s):

      Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-13292


      Bernice Hernandez Antunez


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2180 Cordillera Avenue, Colton, CA 92324


      MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      EH   


      Docket 25


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from the co-debtor stay under § 1301(a). GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Bernice Hernandez Antunez Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

      Nancy L Lee

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Bernice Hernandez Antunez


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-13715


      Jennifer Elaine Sackett


      Chapter 13


      #11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 7538 Apache Trail, Yucca Valley, CA 92284


      MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK


      From: 3/5/19 EH   

      Docket 41

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/21/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      03/05/2019

      Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


      The Debtor’s opposition offers evidence that the Debtor fell behind on her mortgage payments due to costs incurred as a result of a legal custody dispute. Debtor asserts that the dispute has now been resolved. Debtor further asserts that she expects a tax refund, additional income from a part time job, and increased child support payments which will enable her to come current within 90 days. While stay relief is warranted, the Court is inclined to enter an APO to permit the Debtor an opportunity to cure the post-petition arrears and to protect Movant from the expense of having to file additional motions for relief from stay. Parties to update the Court on APO discussions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Elaine Sackett Represented By Brian C Andrews

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Jennifer Elaine Sackett


      Chapter 13

      MidFirst Bank Represented By Gilbert R Yabes Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-13793


      Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE, VIN:1C4R JECG 5GC3 44961


      MOVANT: MECHANICS BANK


      EH   


      Docket 52


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno


      Chapter 13

      MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-14225


      Karen Patricia Boyd


      Chapter 13


      #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 16460 Zarco Luna Place, Moreno Valley, CA 92551


      MOVANT: US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      EH   


      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/11/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Karen Patricia Boyd Represented By David Lozano

      Movant(s):

      U.S. Bank Trust National Represented By Michelle R Ghidotti Kathy Watson Kristin A Zilberstein

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-14257


      Adam Casey Addison


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 30285 Eagle Ridge Court, Murrietta, CA 92563-3546


      MOVANT: SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY


      EH   


      Docket 42


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C).


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adam Casey Addison Represented By Nima S Vokshori Luke Jackson

      Movant(s):

      Sun West Mortgage Company, Inc., Represented By

      Nichole Glowin

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Adam Casey Addison


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-14686


      Cassandra Henderson


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15005 Sorrel Road, Victorville, CA 92394


      MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 27


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Cassandra Henderson Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Movant(s):

      Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Nancy L Lee

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Cassandra Henderson


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-14725


      Percylyn Agustin Basa


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 CONT Motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14623 Meadowsweet Dr Eastvale, CA 92880


      MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR COOPER


      From: 1/8/19, 2/5/19, 2/26/19, 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 56

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/12/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      1/8/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Movant to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Percylyn Agustin Basa Represented By Benjamin R Heston

      Movant(s):

      Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

      Angie M Marth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-15051


      Rueben Anthony Castro and Adrian Marie Castro


      Chapter 7


      #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2010 Dodge Challenger, VIN 2B3CJ4DV2AH238325


      MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.


      Also #18 EH   

      Docket 49


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rueben Anthony Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Adrian Marie Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Rueben Anthony Castro and Adrian Marie Castro


      Chapter 7

      Americredit Financial Services, Inc., Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-15051


      Rueben Anthony Castro and Adrian Marie Castro


      Chapter 7


      #18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Dodge Ram 1500, VIN: 3C6RR6KT7GG117000


      MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


      Also #17 EH   

      Docket 50


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rueben Anthony Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Adrian Marie Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Rueben Anthony Castro and Adrian Marie Castro


      Chapter 7

      Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-15131


      Arcy B Gonzales and Margarita B Gonzales


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 53194 Monaco Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532


      MOVANT: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


      EH   


      Docket 42


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Arcy B Gonzales Represented By Laleh Ensafi

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Margarita B Gonzales Represented By Laleh Ensafi

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Arcy B Gonzales and Margarita B Gonzales


      Chapter 13

      The Bank of New York Mellon Represented By Darlene C Vigil

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-16905


      Tina M Coca


      Chapter 7


      #20.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 48 SMX Capital SMX250P Panels, 2 Power One: PVI-6000 Inverters, racking system, mounting hardware, wiring; Size

      12.000kW (DC) located at 2345 Cornell Circle, Corona, CA 92881. (12.000 kW Solar Photovoltaic System)


      MOVANT: SOLARMAX RENEWABLE ENERGY PROVIDER, INC


      From: 3/26/19 EH       

      Docket 22


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      Due to Movant’s cure of service deficiencies, and Debtor’s stated intent to surrender the property, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request to proceed to collect collateral prior to the sale of the property upon which it is installed.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tina M Coca Represented By

      Emilia N McAfee

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Tina M Coca


      Chapter 7

      Solarmax Renewable Energy Represented By Alexander G Meissner Asya Landa

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-19027


      Wendy Ramirez


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 30157 Pine Needle Road, Menifee, CA 92585


      MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to apprise Court as to status of adequate protection discussions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Wendy Ramirez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Movant(s):

      Freedom Mortgage Corporation, its Represented By

      Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20008


      Catalina J Alvarez


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Confirming Termination of Stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(j) or That No Stay is in Effect under 11 U.S.C.

      362(c)(4)(A)(ii) .


      MOVANT: ALASKA USA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


      EH   


      Docket 34


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: No.


      As Debtor had a Chapter 13 case pending within one year of their filing of this case, and Debtor failed to motion the Court to continue the automatic stay within 30 days after filing their petitition, the Court is inclined to GRANT Creditor's motion for an order confirming termination of the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3).


      The Court notes that relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) only applies to real property, and Creditor’s current motion concerns personal property. As such, the Court is inclined to DENY Creditor’s motion for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4).


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Catalina J Alvarez Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Catalina J Alvarez


      Chapter 13

      Alaska USA Federal Credit Union Represented By

      Bonni S Mantovani

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20245


      Jennifer Lynn Miller


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 42830 La Brinia Lane Anza, California 92539


      MOVANT: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC


      EH   


      Docket 32

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING 4/16/2019

      Opposition: Yes Service: Proper

      Parties to appraise the Court of the status of the arrears and adequate protection discussions, if any.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Lynn Miller Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Movant(s):

      Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC Represented By

      S Renee Sawyer Blume Bonni S Mantovani

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Jennifer Lynn Miller


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20569


      Dolores Thompson Boone


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HYUNDAI Sonata Sedan 4D SE I4


      MOVANT: EXETER FINANCE, LLC


      EH   


      Docket 24

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 3/14/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Dolores Thompson Boone Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Movant(s):

      Exeter Finance, LLC Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20635


      Luis Antonio Gaeta


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Kia Forte, VIN: KNAFK4A6XF5426074


      MOVANT: AUTOMOTIVE CREDIT CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 18

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/28/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: No.


      This case was dismissed at the confirmation hearing on March 28th, 2019. Under 11

      U.S.C. 362(c)(2)(b) the stay was terminated as of that date. This matter is off-calendar as MOOT, due to the stay no longer being in effect.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis Antonio Gaeta Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Automotive Credit Corporation Represented By Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-10236


      Julio Alejandro Rodriguez-Flock


      Chapter 7


      #26.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F8 2FA1 85099


      MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


      From: 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 11

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      3/26/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Julio Alejandro Rodriguez-Flock Represented By

      Edgar P Lombera

      Movant(s):

      AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Julio Alejandro Rodriguez-Flock


      Vincent V Frounjian


      Chapter 7

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-10466


      Jose Alvarado


      Chapter 7


      #27.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota Camry


      MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Alvarado Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Movant(s):

      Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

      Austin P Nagel

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11045


      Gideon William Alexander Muaya


      Chapter 7


      #28.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Ford Focus, VIN: 1FADP3K23FL351222


      MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


      EH   


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gideon William Alexander Muaya Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Movant(s):

      Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Gideon William Alexander Muaya


      Chapter 7

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11428


      Michael Robert Fister


      Chapter 7


      #29.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 BMW X3 sDrive28i Sport Utility 4D


      MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST


      EH   


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Robert Fister Represented By Leon D Bayer

      Movant(s):

      Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By

      Cheryl A Skigin

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Michael Robert Fister


      Chapter 7

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11436


      Timothy Lee Turner


      Chapter 7


      #30.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 13746 Coldwater Ct Corona, CA 92880


      MOVANT: QIANG QUO, LING GUO


      EH   


      Docket 13

      Tentative Ruling:


      April 16, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: None

      Movant’s motion for relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) is GRANTED. Movant’s request for waiver of FBRP 4001(a)(3) is GRANTED. Movant’s request at

      ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to obtain possession of the property is GRANTED.

      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Timothy Lee Turner Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Guo, Ling Qiang Represented By Barry L O'Connor

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11482


      Anthony Hernandez-Machado


      Chapter 7


      #31.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, VIN: 3GCPCREC6GG357685


      MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE LLC


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Anthony Hernandez-Machado Represented By Curtis A Cavalletto

      Movant(s):

      TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Anthony Hernandez-Machado


      Chapter 7

      John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11746


      Arthur M Domingo and Victoria Domingo


      Chapter 7


      #32.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Ford F350, VIN 1FDRF3G65FED71373


      MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Arthur M Domingo Represented By William J Howell

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Victoria Domingo Represented By William J Howell

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Arthur M Domingo and Victoria Domingo


      Chapter 7

      Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11757


      Virginia Ann Bennett


      Chapter 13


      #33.00 Motion for Relief from Stay


      MOVANT: CAPITAL AUTO FINANCIAL


      EH   


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Virginia Ann Bennett Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Movant(s):

      Capital Auto Financial Represented By Gennady L Lebedev

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12402


      Paul Sheldon Kirkwood


      Chapter 13


      #34.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 37244 Fallsgrove Murrieta, CA 92563; 2015 Ford F350 Super Duty Lariat 4WD SRW; 2012 Freightliner Cascadeas; 2015 Polaris Razor; 2005 Thor Wanderer 5th Wheel Trailer; 2011 Kia Rio Sedan LX .


      MOVANT: PAUL SHELDON KIRKWOOD


      EH   


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service: Improper Opposition: None.


      Debtor’s motion was improperly served under Judge Houle’s self-calendaring rule III.D, which requires 14 days’ notice through service on all interested parties, including creditors and their counsel, pursuant to FRBP 7004. FRBP 7004 requires service by certified mail on a party’s officer or general agent for service of process. Debtor appears to have done so on all parties, except for Polaris Consumer Finance and Citizen’s Bank, North America. Debtor failed to direct service to those parties’ agent for service of process, and, in the case of Polaris, the location given is now closed.


      As to the merits, the Court finds that Debtor has present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that this case was not filed in good faith and is inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion for an imposition of the automatic stay.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Paul Sheldon Kirkwood


      Chapter 13

      Paul Sheldon Kirkwood Represented By Michael E Clark

      Movant(s):

      Paul Sheldon Kirkwood Represented By Michael E Clark

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12439


      Caleb Gervin and Ashley Gervin


      Chapter 13


      #35.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property Residence, Toyota Vehicle and Lexus Vehicle


      MOVANT: CALEB GERVIN AND ASHLEY GERVIN


      EH   


      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      April 16, 2019


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) establishes a presumption of bad faith for a Chapter 13 petition if a Debtor has had a previous plan dismissed within the past year for failure to perform the plan as confirmed. Defeating this presumption requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence of good faith. Here, Debtors have seen an increase in net monthly income since their original petition, and it appears that they are capable of paying the plan payments. The Court is inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion to continue the stay.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Caleb Gervin Represented By

      Christopher Hewitt

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ashley Gervin Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Caleb Gervin and Ashley Gervin


      Chapter 13

      Caleb Gervin Represented By

      Christopher Hewitt

      Ashley Gervin Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:19-11267


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      #36.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Causes of Action .


      MOVANT: ANDRZEJ LUCZYNSKI AND Z&M TRADING, INC.


      EH   


      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 4/30/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Courtesy NEF Represented By Dawn M Coulson Paul M Stoddard Mark W Edelstein

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10628


      Markus Anthony Boyd


      Chapter 11


      #37.00 CONT Application for Compensation for Nicholas W Gebelt, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/26/2018 to 11/21/2018, Fee: $31,465.00, Expenses: $673.89.


      From: 1/8/19, 1/29/19, 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 95


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

      Movant(s):

      Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

      2:00 PM

      6:18-11806


      Rick's Patio Inc


      Chapter 11


      #38.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report

      (Post Confirmation)


      From: 4/24/18, 7/31/18, 9/25/18, 12/4/18 EH   

      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Rick's Patio Inc Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16908


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11


      #39.00 Motion for Relief from Stay UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 362.


      MOVANT: JILLIAN SOTO


      EH   


      Docket 350


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

      David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

      Movant(s):

      Janette Lee Represented By

      Janette C Lee

      2:00 PM

      6:17-15717


      AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


      Chapter 11


      #40.00 CONT Post Confirmation Status Conference From: 12/18/18

      EH   


      Docket 161


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. Represented By

      David Lozano

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #41.00 Application for Compensation First Interim Application of Terzian Law Group, A Professional Corporation, Attorneys for Debtor and Debtor in Possession with proof of service for Tamar Terzian, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 7/23/2018 to 3/15/2019, Fee: $48,677.50, Expenses: $2,934.30.


      Also #42 - #44


      EH   


      Docket 120


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      Movant(s):

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #42.00 CONT Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case


      From: 9/25/18, 10/1/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18, 1/15/19, 2/5/19 Also #41 - #44

      EH    


      Docket 37

      Tentative Ruling:

      9/25/2018

      BACKGROUND


      On July 23, 2018, Richard Garavito ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor previously filed a Chapter 13 case on April 17, 2018, which was dismissed on July 19, 2018.


      On August 29, 2018, the Taylor Family Trust of June 16, 2004 ("Creditor"), the primary creditor in the instant case, filed a motion to confirm that the automatic stay terminated pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A). On September 7, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to continue/impose the automatic stay. Because Debtor has not offered a cognizable legal argument as to why the automatic stay has not terminated, or why Debtor can obtain a continuation of the automatic stay after the statutory deadline, the Court has posted tentative rulings indicating that it intends to grant Creditor’s motion and deny Debtor’s motion.


      On September 11, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the case and an application

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11

      shortening time. On September 13, 2018, the Court approved the application shortening time, and set a hearing for September 25, 2018.


      DISCUSSION



      11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) states:


      Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c), on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause unless the court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.


      11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4) provides a non-exclusive list of sixteen examples of cause – most of which are more appropriately considered when the moving party is an entity other than the debtor.


      Here, Debtor’s motion is unclear, at best. The entire argument why the case should be dismissed is reproduced, verbatim, as follows:


      In the present case, since the motion to impose and/or continue the stay was not timely filed, the stay will no longer be in effect with the pending motion to terminate the stay filed by secured creditor Taylor Family Trust.


      The Debtor should not be penalized due to counsel’s inadvertent calendaring

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11

      error of the 30 days rule of filing a motion to impose and/or continue the stay. However, an argument can be made that under the majority approach a motion to impose or continue the stay shall be filed as to the Debtor individually and not as to the property of the estate. Here, the Subject Property is property of the estate and the automatic stay should be in effect as to the Subject Property.


      However, due to circumstances surrounding the possible termination of the stay, the Debtor requests dismissal of this case as there is no purpose if the stay is not in effect as to the Subject Property.


      [Dkt. No. 37, pg. 5]. In summary, Debtor acknowledges that the stay has statutorily terminated and the deadline to continue the automatic stay has lapsed, but then argues that such stay termination is with regards to the Debtor only, not property of the estate. Despite the argument, the Debtor then asserts that due to "circumstances" the Debtor requests dismissal because there is "no purpose" if the stay has also terminated as to property of the estate.


      There are multiple issues with the above line of argument. First, Debtor does not appear to have raised any coherent cause for dismissal – the only argument made in favor of dismissal, that the "Subject Property" is not protected by the automatic stay, (and thus this Chapter 11 case cannot be successful) is also explicitly rejected by Debtor. Second, § 1112(b) requires the Court to consider whether dismissal or conversion to Chapter 7 is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. Here, Debtor’s schedules filed in the instant case indicate that all creditors would likely be paid in full if this case was converted to Chapter 7. Therefore, pursuant to the analysis required by § 1112(b), it is unclear why this case would be dismissed rather than converted to Chapter 7.


      Finally, the Court acknowledges that, in a reply relating to its motion to confirm that the automatic stay has terminated, Creditor has requested that, if the case is dismissed, Debtor be restricted from re-filing by a bar. While raising this argument in a reply relating to a different motion is procedurally improper, the Court need not address the request at the current time given the issues above.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11



      TENTATIVE RULING



      Debtor and Creditor to argue: (1) whether there is cause for dismissal; (2) whether the automatic stay is in effect as to the Subject Property; and (3) whether dismissal or conversion to Chapter 7 would be in the best interests of creditors.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      Movant(s):

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #43.00 CONT Disclosure Statement Describing Debtors Chapter 11 Plan

      (HOLDING DATE)


      From: 1/29/19, 2/26/19 Also #41 - #44

      EH   


      Docket 87


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #44.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 8/21/18, 10/16/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18, 1/15/19, 2/5/19 Also #41 - #43

      EH       


      Docket 7


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20373


      Ronald Eugene Russell


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Motion to Avoid Lien Real Property with Craig S. Nelson and Beverly Nelson EH   

      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/17/2019


      On December 11, 2018, Ronald Russell ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Among the assets listed on Schedules A/B was certain real property located at 3 Volta Del Tintori, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 (the "Property"), which Debtor valued at $431,300. On Schedule C, Debtor claimed an exemption in the Property in the amount of $85,491.49.


      On February 5, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to avoid the judgment lien of Craig & Beverly Nelson ("Creditors"). On February 22, 2019, Creditors filed a response. The matter was set for hearing on April 17, 2019. Debtor subsequently filed an appraiser’s declaration and a reply.


      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion, without prejudice, for lack of cause shown. Specifically, the Court notes that 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), in part, states the following: "Notwithstanding any waiver of exemptions but subject to paragraph (3), the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption . . . " (emphasis added). Here, it is not clear what interest Debtor has in the Property.


      California law does now explicitly provide that judgment liens can attach to equitable interests. See CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 697.340. Nevertheless, whether Debtor has an equitable interest in the Property, and to what extent, is not clear. This is especially true in light of the fact that the mortgage statement provided in support of the motion is addressed to a Deborah Russell, and the deed of trust identifies the borrower as "Deborah Lee Russell, a married woman, as her [s]ole and [s]eparate [p]roperty."

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Ronald Eugene Russell


      Chapter 7

      Furthermore, the recorded abstract of judgment for Debtor lists two addresses, neither of which is the address of the Property.


      The Court also notes that there further deficiencies or issues with the instant motion. First, Debtor has improperly deducted costs of sale from the appraised fair market value. See, e.g., In re Barrett, 370 B.R. 1, 3 (Bankr. D. Me. 2007) ("a bevy of courts have opted against including hypothetical sales costs and other transaction costs in the valuation of collateral for the purpose of determining the fate of a judicial lien") (collecting cases). Because Debtor’s reduction of the property’s fair market value is not permitted, even if Debtor could resolve the issue stated above, Creditor’s lien could not be avoided in full. Second, it appears that, pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4003(b)(1), the deadline to object to Debtor’s exemption has not passed; given the contents of Creditor’s opposition, the Court deems it necessary to wait for the expiration of that deadline. Third, the Court notes that none of the exhibits to the motion are properly authenticated. Finally, because Debtor has not filed out the proposed order attachment to the motion, the motion technically does not request any relief.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ronald Eugene Russell Represented By Vincent Renda

      Movant(s):

      Ronald Eugene Russell Represented By Vincent Renda

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-15604


      John Anthony Ploszaj


      Chapter 7


      #2.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 30


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/17/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $ 1,350.00 Trustee Expenses: $ 40.11


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John Anthony Ploszaj Represented By Robert L Firth

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:18-20247


      Stephen Lynn Overmyer


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:19-01039 McCune v. Overmyer


      #3.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01039. Complaint by B. Lynn McCune against Stephen Overmyer . false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud))


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Stephen Lynn Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

      Defendant(s):

      Stephen Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

      Plaintiff(s):

      B. Lynn McCune Represented By James A Rainboldt

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10208


      Rolando Carlos Reyes


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01117 Pringle v. Reyes


      #4.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01117. Complaint by John P. Pringle against Reginald Reyes. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). with Proof of Service Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property))


      From: 7/25/18, 10/24/18, 1/16/19 EH   

      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER DISMISSING ADVERSARY FILED 3/13/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rolando Carlos Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

      Defendant(s):

      Reginald Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Florencia Aquino Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

      Plaintiff(s):

      John P. Pringle Represented By Brandon J Iskander

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Rolando Carlos Reyes


      Chapter 7

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

      Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP

      2:00 PM

      6:17-18295


      Eastern Legends CW


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01222 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bobby Lee Associates, LLC


      #5.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01222. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Bobby Lee Associates, LLC. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Polis, Thomas)


      From: 1/16/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Defendant(s):

      Bobby Lee Associates, LLC Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Thomas J Polis

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

      2:00 PM

      6:17-18295


      Eastern Legends CW


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01227 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Wang


      #6.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01227. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Ming Chung Wang. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


      From: 1/16/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Defendant(s):

      Ming Chung Wang Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Thomas J Polis

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

      2:00 PM

      6:17-18295


      Eastern Legends CW


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01228 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Via Cerro Partners, LP


      #7.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01228. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Via Cerro Partners, LP. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


      From: 1/16/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Defendant(s):

      Via Cerro Partners, LP Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Thomas J Polis

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

      2:00 PM

      6:17-13012


      Issa M Musharbash


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


      #8.00 Amended Motion for order to strike the "answer to discovery" erroneously filed by defendants (related document(s): 82 Motion to strike filed by Plaintiff Phillip Musharbash, Plaintiff Violette Musharbash)


      EH   


      Docket 85


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Defendant(s):

      Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

      Amal Musharbash Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Movant(s):

      Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

      Violette Musharbash Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

      Violette Musharbash Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Issa M Musharbash


      Chapter 7

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 11 by Claimant Natasha Reynoso and Mark Reynoso

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19


      EH   


      Docket 44


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Movant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


      #10.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (Fourth Amended Complaint) Also #11

      EH   


      Docket 132

      Tentative Ruling: 4/17/2019

      BACKGROUND


      On September 12, 2016, Douglas and Anne Goodman (collectively, "Debtors" or "Defendants") filed their Chapter 13 voluntary petition.


      On November 11, 2016, Mark and Natasha Reynoso ("Plaintiffs") filed a complaint seeking determination of the dischargeability of a debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (2)(A) (the "Complaint"). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2015, they purchased real property located at 1656 West Lisbon Street in Upland, CA (the "Property") from the Debtors, and that a sale was consummated upon a misrepresentation of Debtors’ agent, Theresa Mann, regarding the square footage of the Property. Plaintiffs also assert that they were led to believe that a water leak in the upstairs bathroom had been repaired. Plaintiffs allege that the Debtors knew or should have known that their agent was making false and misleading representations to Plaintiffs.


      On February 3, 2017, the Court entered an order granting Defendants first motion to dismiss the Complaint, with leave to amend. A First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") was filed on February 28, 2017. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint captioned "Corrected" which indicated it had been corrected for typographical errors. (the "Corrected Complaint" or the "SAC"). The Court denied Defendants’ second motion to dismiss at a hearing on May 4, 2017. On June 5, 2017, the Defendants filed their Answer to the FAC ("Answer").

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13


      On March 9, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the SAC, with leave to amend. A third amended complaint was then filed on May 23, 2018 (the "TAC"). [Note: there is a dispute regarding whether the operative complaint is a second or third amended complaint due to the filing of the "corrected complaint" indicated above. For purposes of this hearing, the operative complaint is Docket No. 93, the TAC].


      On June 25, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the TAC. This motion was orally granted after a hearing on August 2, 2018, after Plaintiffs failed to file opposition to the motion, and neither party appeared at the hearing. On August 29, 2018, the Court’s oral ruling was set aside based upon stipulation of the parties. On October 9, 2018, Defendants filed opposition to the instant motion to dismiss. The matter was then continued on multiple occasions to afford the parties the opportunity to settle the matter. Finally, after a hearing, the Court dismissed the TAC, with leave to amend, on February 20, 2019.


      On February 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint (the "4th AC"). On March 20, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 4th AC. Defendants argue that the 4th AC: (1) fails to set forth a basis for a money judgment under state law; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) fails to state a claim of false representation attributable to Defendants. On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.


      DISCUSSION


      1. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS


        FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6), made applicable in adversary proceedings through FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7012, a bankruptcy court may dismiss a complaint if it fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In reviewing a FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the trial court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The trial court need not, however, accept as true conclusory allegations in a complaint or legal characterizations cast in the form of factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Douglas Edward Goodman


        Chapter 13

        L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Hartman v. Gilead Scis., Inc. (In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.), 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).


        To avoid dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must aver in the complaint "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173

        L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). It is axiomatic that a claim cannot be plausible when it has no legal basis. A dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6) may be based either on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008).


      2. FAILURE TO STATE A LEGAL BASIS FOR A MONEY JUDGMENT

        The Court notes that this is the fourth amended complaint, and that the Court has previously held several hearings on the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. The primary issue during those hearings was the failure of Plaintiffs to assert a legal basis which could serve as the basis of a debt and a money judgment. The following excerpt is from the Court’s tentative ruling at a hearing on February 6, 2019:


        The crux of Defendants’ argument for dismissal of the TAC is that Plaintiffs have not set forth the basis for a money judgment under state law. In the Court’s tentative ruling on the motion to dismiss the FAC, the Court stated the following:


        The Ninth Circuit has held that a bankruptcy court may enter a monetary judgment on a disputed state law fraud claim in the course of determining that the debt is nondischargeable. Cowen v. Kennedy (In re Kennedy), 108 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir.1997). Shawn Deitz v. Wayne Ford, Patricia Ford (In re Wayne Ford, Patricia Ford), 469 B.R. 11, 21 (9th Cir. BAP 2012), aff'd, 760 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, although the Complaint is not explicit regarding the state law causes of action at issue, it appears implicit in the allegations that the Plaintiffs seek a monetary judgment as to a fraud or misrepresentation claim. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs should not have to guess at the state law basis of the debt for a money judgment.


        Here, the TAC has added bases for calculation of damages under state law but has still not set forth the state law basis for the monetary judgment. Thus, the Plaintiffs have still not addressed the concerns raised by the Court and

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Douglas Edward Goodman

        Defendants that they do not have sufficient notice of the basis for a monetary judgment such that the Defendants can adequately defend themselves in the action.


        Given the contents of the opposition to the motion to dismiss, and noting the discussion at previous hearings to dismiss, it appears there is significant confusion regarding the required contents of a complaint in this situation.

        Importantly, the instant situation is unique. There is a parallel, outstanding claim objection which could serve as a forum to litigate the validity of the underlying debt. Instead of maintaining two parallel, and overlapping, courses of litigation, the claim objection proceeding has been converted to a "holding date" so that both issues, the validity of the underlying debt and, if established, the non-dischargeability of that debt, can be more efficiently litigated in a single proceeding. Because this adversary proceeding is functioning as more than just a proceeding to determine the non- dischargeability of a pre-determined debt, Plaintiffs need to articulate the state law basis for the debt with the precision and clarity that would be required in, for instance, a state court proceeding. This is even more critical because, at a previous hearing, state law affirmative defenses of limited applicability were raised, and the Court is unable to assess the validity of such defenses when it is unclear what Plaintiff has raised as a theory of debt.


        Chapter 13


        For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs are reminded that this instant adversary proceeding serves two functions: (1) to litigate the validity of the debt; and (2) to litigate the non-dischargeability of that debt, if established. The former is really the preliminary issue in this situation, and the court expects the former to be pled with sufficient detail to enable the Court and Defendants to clearly ascertain Plaintiff’s theory of the debt.


        Defendants continue to argue that Plaintiffs have failed to set forth a basis for a money judgment under state law. Specifically, Defendants inartfully state:


        Here, although the Complaint is not explicit regarding the state law causes of action at the issue, it appears implicit in allegations that the Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment as to fraud or misrepresentation claim. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs should not have to guess at the state law basis of the debt for a money judgment.


        [Dkt. No. 132, pg. 8]. This argument is not well taken. The 4th AC’s first claim

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Douglas Edward Goodman


        Chapter 13

        for relief explicitly states that it is for fraud/misrepresentation of material facts pursuant to CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1709-10. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have set forth a valid state law basis for a money judgment.


      3. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

      While Defendants’ motion to dismiss contains two different sections addressed to this issue, sections three and four, the sections actually overlap. The crux of Defendants’ argument is that it was not Defendants themselves who made the misrepresentations at issue, but, rather, third-parties.


      The Court need not resolve whether Plaintiffs can use the misrepresentations of an agent as a basis for non-dischargeability because the 4th AC contains allegations that defendant Anne Goodman also made misrepresentations. Specifically, paragraph 20 of the 4th AC contains an allegation that Anne Goodman stated "that the upstairs water leak had been repaired." And paragraph 14 of the 4th AC contains an assertion that Anne Goodman verified the real estate agent’s misrepresentations regarding the square footage of the property. Therefore, it is not accurate to assert that the 4th AC only contains allegations that misrepresentations were made by third parties.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion to dismiss.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Defendant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

      Jose Pastora Represented By

      Andrew L Leff

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Movant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

      Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

      Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

      Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Plaintiff(s):

      Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


      #11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [13] Amended Complaint by Michael J Hemming on behalf of Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01277. Complaint by Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Douglas Edward Goodman, Anne Louise Goodman. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) filed by Plaintiff Mark & Natasha Reynoso)

      (Holding Date)


      From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19


      Also #12 EH   

      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Defendant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Jose Pastora Represented By

      Andrew L Leff

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Plaintiff(s):

      Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:14-17350


      Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


      Chapter 7


      #12.00 Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions for Discovery Abuse Also #13

      EH   


      Docket 215


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Dean L. Springer Sr. Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Tami Jo Springer Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

      D Edward Hays Laila Masud

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

      D Edward Hays Laila Masud

      2:00 PM

      6:14-17350


      Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 CONT Motion for Order Requiring Disgorgement of Funds from Hilder & Associates


      From: 1/30/19, 2/27/19 Also #12

      EH   


      Docket 192

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/17/19

      BACKGROUND


      On June 3, 2014, Dean & Tami Springer ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Debtors’ case led to substantial investigation by Trustee, ultimately producing ten adversary proceedings filed by Trustee.


      As part of its investigation, Trustee requested documents from Hilder & Associates ("Hilder"), Debtors’ criminal defense counsel. Trustee learned that Hilder received a retainer of $117,500 (the "Retainer"), on the eve of bankruptcy, for the provision of criminal defense services. Trustee argues that the entirety of the Retainer is subject to disgorgement and turnover because Hilder did not comply with the disclosure requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 329(a). Trustee alternatively argues that $43,500 of the Retainer is property of the estate because it was unearned as of the petition date.


      Extended settlement discussions did not result in a compromise. On November 7,

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


      Chapter 7

      2018, Trustee filed a motion for disgorgement of funds. Trustee decided to set the matter for hearing on January 30, 2019, to allow the parties to conduct discovery prior to the hearing. Pursuant to a stipulation, the hearing on the matter was continued to February 27, 2019. On February 13, 2019, Hilder filed its opposition. The Court then continued the matter to April 17, 2019. Also on calendar is a discovery dispute related to certain discovery requests propounded by Hilder on January 29, 2019.


      According to Trustee, Hilder advised "Debtor [Dean Springer] to assert his 5th Amendment rights in connection with his meeting of creditors and regarding the adversary to deny discharge." [Dkt. No. 192, pg. 21, lines 12-13].


      DISCUSSION


      1. 11 U.S.C. § 329 & DISGORGEMENT


        11 U.S.C. § 329(a) provides:


        Any attorney representing a debtor in a case under this title, or in connection with a such a case, whether or not such attorney applies for compensation under this title, shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid, if such payment or agreement was made after one year before the date of the filing of the petition, for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the source of such compensation.


        Furthermore, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 2016 and 2017 provide additional rules regarding the disclosure and examination of compensation for attorneys.


        The most critical dispute between the parties is whether Hilder represented Debtors

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


        Chapter 7

        "in connection with [the bankruptcy] case." Both Trustee and Hilder have presented caselaw which unambiguously supports their position. Trustee cites In re Rheuban, 121 B.R. 368, 377 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1990), which stated, in part:


        It cannot be disputed that regulatory and criminal proceedings focused on Debtor’s relationship with FNSB is currently having and will continue to have a substantial impact on this bankruptcy case. The clearest example of this is Debtor’s refusal to respond to any questions regarding his business affairs at the 11 U.S.C. § 341(a) meeting of creditors conducted in this bankruptcy case. O & L represented Debtor at these meetings and apparently advised Debtor regarding his invocation of this Fifth Amendment.


        The Court in In re Rheuban offered the following conclusion:


        Thus I conclude that the "in connection with" language used in § 329 extends the scope of the Court’s review to compensation paid by the debtor to an attorney any time after one year prior to the commencement of the debtor’s bankruptcy case, whether or not the court can make a subjective determination that the debtor was contemplating bankruptcy, if it can be objectively determined that the services rendered or to be rendered by the attorney have or will have an impact on the bankruptcy case.


        121 B.R. at 378. The relatively broad legal standard endorsed in In re Rheuban directly conflicts with the standard adopted in the case emphasized by Hilder, In re Bressman, 327 F.3d 229, 240-41 (3rd Cir. 2003), which stated:


        [R]epresentation of a debtor in a criminal case during the period of bankruptcy would not normally require a report any more than would representation of the debtor in a divorce proceeding during that period. While acknowledging this, the Trustee nevertheless insists that this case is different because of three alleged connections between Newman & Schwartz’s representation of the Debtor and the bankruptcy proceeding. First, the Debtor pled guilty in the criminal proceeding and agreed to

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer

        cooperate with the District Attorney, and those decisions of the Debtor "led to" a settlement of civil claims which benefitted the estate. Second, Newman & Schwartz advised the Debtor to claim the Fifth Amendment in the bankruptcy proceedings and reviewed a brief filed in those proceedings which relied upon the Debtor having to assert the Fifth Amendment in the criminal proceedings. Finally, the Trustee points to three entries in Newman & Schwartz’s billing records that refer to an attorney having reviewed "bankruptcy related" documents, as well as a small number of telephonic conferences with bankruptcy counsel.


        Chapter 7



        We find no § 329 violation. Nothing in the record suggests that Newman & Schwartz did anything other than provide representation to the Debtor in the criminal proceedings against him. It advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in those proceedings and, when he decided to do so, it advised him on what he must do to preserve the privilege, including asserting it in the bankruptcy proceeding. While its fee sheets indicate that it spent a minimal amount of time reviewing "bankruptcy related" documents and speaking to the Debtor’s bankruptcy counsel, nothing suggests that this was for any purpose other than providing effective representation in the criminal proceedings. Actions taken by a client in the course of a

        representation will normally have a multitude of side effects, with respect to which counsel has assumed no responsibility and, indeed, of which counsel may have no knowledge. If § 329 were held to sweep so broadly, it is difficult to understand how even the most conscientious of counsel could assure compliance.


        [Citation omitted]. While the parties make some attempt to factually and procedurally distinguish the cases mentioned above, it appears clear that applying the two standards adopted in In re Rheuban and In re Bressman would result in two different holdings in this situation.


        While the Court is aware that numerous citations could be offered in support of either the broad or narrow interpretation of the "in connection with" clause contained in § 329(a), the Court is inclined to conclude that FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2017 supports the narrower reading adopted by In re Bressman. Specifically, the Court notes that FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2017 states the following:

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer

        1. Payment or Transfer to Attorney Before Order for Relief. On motion by any party in interest or on the court’s own initiative, the court after notice and a hearing may determine whether any payment of money or any transfer of property by the debtor, made directly or indirectly and in contemplation of the filing of a petition under the Code by or against the debtor or before entry of the order for relief in an involuntary case, to an attorney for services rendered or to be rendered is excessive.


        2. Payment or Transfer to Attorney After Order for Relief. On motion by the debtor, the United States trustee, or on the court’s own initiative, the court after notice and a hearing may determine whether any payment of money or any transfer of property, or any agreement therefor, by the debtor to an attorney after entry of an order for relief in a case under the Code is excessive, whether the payment or transfer is made or is to be made directly or indirectly, if the payment, transfer, or agreement therefor is for services in any way related to the case.


          Chapter 7


          In the instant motion, Trustee asserts the following:


          All in all, bankruptcy courts are empowered to examine and disgorge all fees paid within the one year prior to bankruptcy and after the petition date, irrespective of the nature of the services rendered, in order to determine whether they were paid in connection or in contemplation of bankruptcy and whether they are reasonable.


          [Dkt. No. 192, pg. 12, lines 9-12]. While this assertion is somewhat convoluted due to its use of a number of conjunctions, it would appear that the assertion conflicts somewhat with FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2017. Rule 2017 distinguishes between prepetition and postpetition payments. Regarding the former, the rule provides for examination of payments made "in contemplation of the filing of a petition." Regarding the latter, the rules provides for examination of payments made "for services in any way related to the case." This latter standard seems to reflect the broader rule, which was endorsed by In re Rheuban; the former seems to reflect the narrower rule, favored by In re Bressman.

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


          Chapter 7

          Here, the payment at issue was a prepetition payment, and thus would fall under the more restricting subsection, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2017(a). While 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) requires disclosure of payment received for services rendered "in contemplation of or in connection with" (emphasis added) a bankruptcy case, such disclosure would seem to be of limited practical significance if those payments are not included within the scope of the Court’s review under Rule 2017(a). While the Court does not read "in connection with" as interchangeable with "in contemplation of," the Court concludes that the phrases should be similarly limiting, at least in the context of prepetition arrangements, and that the narrower reading of the phrase "in connection with," is more appropriate given the language of Rule 2017(a).


          While Trustee’s motion includes a subsection discussing the "in contemplation of" standard, after a paragraph which recites the applicable standard, the subsection reverts back to using the "in connection with" phrase. Furthermore, the record before the Court is devoid of any evidence which would suggest that the Retainer at issue was executed in contemplation of bankruptcy, or that the services contracted for were sufficiently connected to this bankruptcy proceeding as to bring the Retainer within the purview of 11 U.S.C. § 329.


      2. THE RETAINER & PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE


      Trustee’s alternative argument is that $43,500 of the Retainer was not earned as of the petition date and constitutes property of the estate subject to turnover. Hilder argues that the Retainer was a non-refundable, earned upon receipt retainer, and that, as a result, no portion of the Retainer can be characterized as property of the estate.

      Hilder’s principal place of business is in Texas, and the parties appear to agree that Texas law applies to determine the respective property interests.


      The only relevant evidence provided by Trustee in its motion is found at paragraph eight of the attached declaration, which provides:

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer

      The rules in Texas regarding "true" or "earned upon receipt" retainers seem to align with the rules in California. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit "2.", which found that "any payment for services not yet completed does not meet the strict requirements for a non-refundable retainer (as that term is used in this opinion) and must be deposited in the lawyer’s trust or escrow account.


      Chapter 7



      [Dkt. No. 192, pg. 8, lines 2-6]. Regarding Trustee’s legal argument, Trustee primarily relies upon a Texas Ethics Opinion, but also cites In re Dixon, 143 B.R. 671 (Bankr.

      N.D. Tex. 1992), which Trustee asserts stands for the proposition that the Retainer remained property of the estate until the attorney applies the funds against charges incurred.


      Hilder’s primary argument in response is that the Retainer is a "classic retainer" which "involves fees paid as consideration for employment of counsel, as opposed to compensation for services rendered." [Dkt. No 205, pg. 16, lines 24-26].


      There are extensive problems with the current procedural posture. First, as briefly noted above, the instant motion contains virtually no supporting evidence; the relevant evidence is only presented to the Court in the opposition and the reply, and the evidence is materially redacted. Second, Trustee appears to have shifted its argument in the reply. The motion appears to argue that funds not earned as of the petition date are property of the estate, although the motion does not contain evidence which would allow the Court to determine whether the funds were earned. The reply, however, seems to shift, apparently conceding that a non-refundable retainer is appropriate in some circumstances, while arguing that it is not appropriate in these circumstances. In order to support that argument, Trustee presents new evidence not included in the underlying motion, an approach disfavored by Local Rule 9013-1(g)(4).


      While not raised by the parties, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7001(1) provides that "a proceeding to recover money or property, other than a proceeding to compel the debtor to deliver property of the trustee, or a proceeding under § 554(b) or § 725 of the Code, Rule 2017, or Rule 6002" is an adversary proceeding. While Trustee’s argument for disgorgement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329 and FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


      Chapter 7

      2017 is explicitly excepted from those proceedings characterized as adversary proceedings, Trustee’s argument that the unearned portion of the Retainer is property of the estate fits within the scope of Rule 7001(1). Bankruptcy courts differ regarding when waiver of the Rule 7001(1) adversary proceeding requirement is appropriate.

      See, e.g., 10 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 7001.01 (16th ed. 2018) ("Failure to

      commence an adversary proceeding when seeking the relief of the kind listed in Rule 7001 has resulted in denial of the motion or dismissal of the proceeding. However, in cases where no prejudice to the parties has arisen or where no objection to the procedural defect has been lodged, certain courts allow matters to proceed by way of motions under Rule 9014 rather than as adversary proceedings.") (footnote omitted) (collecting cases).


      Here, it may not be appropriate to waive the requirements of an adversary proceeding for several reasons. First, the failure to commence an adversary proceeding has directly contributed to the discovery dispute also currently at issue. Second, the evidentiary record has not been fully developed; to the extent it has been developed, such development primarily occurred in Trustee’s reply. Third, Trustee’s argument that a portion of the Retainer constitutes property of the estate still seems to be evolving as the briefing progresses.


      In light of the problems caused by proceeding under Rule 9014, rather than through an adversary proceeding, the Court is inclined to require an adversary proceeding.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion in its entirety, or, alternatively, to allow further briefing on the issues of whether the unearned portion of the Retainer constitutes property of the estate and whether an adversary proceeding is warranted.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Dean L. Springer, Sr. and Tami Jo Springer


      Chapter 7

      Dean L. Springer Sr. Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Tami Jo Springer Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

      D Edward Hays Laila Masud

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Sarah Cate Hays

      D Edward Hays Laila Masud

      2:00 PM

      6:13-30133


      Nabeel Slaieh


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:14-01081 Albrecht v. Slaieh


      #14.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:14-ap-01081. Complaint by W.E. Jon Albrecht against Nabeel Slaieh. willful and malicious injury))


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Nabeel Slaieh Represented By

      George A Saba - INACTIVE -

      Defendant(s):

      Nabeel Slaieh Represented By Stephen B Mashney Bruce A Boice

      Plaintiff(s):

      W E Jon Albrecht Represented By William L Miltner Robert C Harvey

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By

      D Edward Hays David Wood Matthew Grimshaw

      2:00 PM

      6:13-16964


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


      #15.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:13-ap-01171. Complaint by Charles Edward Schrader against Narinder Sangha . willful and malicious injury))


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

      Defendant(s):

      Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Ryan F Thomas

      Plaintiff(s):

      Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      9:30 AM

      6:03-15174


      Devore Stop A General Partners


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


      #1.00 CONT Evidentiary hearing re Order to Show Cause Why Jesse Bojorquez, American Business Investments, William Morschauser, Stephen Collias and Continental Capital, LLC, Should Not Be Sanctioned for Facilitating Payment to and/or Receiving Payment for Broker Services in Contravention of this Court's August 11, 2003, Sale Order


      From: 1/22/19, 1/23/19 EH   

      Docket 242

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

      Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

      Devore Stop Represented By

      Hutchison B Meltzer

      Defendant(s):

      Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

      Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

      Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

      Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

      American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

      Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

      9:30 AM

      CONT...


      Devore Stop A General Partners


      Chapter 7

      Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      9:30 AM

      6:03-15174


      Devore Stop A General Partners


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


      #1.00 CONT Evidentiary hearing re Order to Show Cause Why Jesse Bojorquez, American Business Investments, William Morschauser, Stephen Collias and Continental Capital, LLC, Should Not Be Sanctioned for Facilitating Payment to and/or Receiving Payment for Broker Services in Contravention of this Court's August 11, 2003, Sale Order


      From: 1/22/19, 4/22/19 EH   

      Docket 242

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

      Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

      Devore Stop Represented By

      Hutchison B Meltzer

      Defendant(s):

      Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

      Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

      Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

      Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

      American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

      Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

      9:30 AM

      CONT...


      Devore Stop A General Partners


      Chapter 7

      Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11189


      Mitchell C. Nelson


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Chapter 7 Trustees Motion for Order: (1) Approving the Sale of Real Property of the Estate Free and Clear of Certain Liens Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §§ 363(b)(1) and (f), Subject to Overbids, Combined With Notice of Bidding Procedures and Request for Approval of the Bidding Procedures Utilized; (2) Approving Payment of Real Estate Commission and Other Costs; and (3) Granting Related Relief


      EH   


      Docket 23


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Mitchell C. Nelson Represented By Douglas A Plazak

      Movant(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Rika Kido

      Trustee(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Rika Kido

      11:00 AM

      6:18-15129


      Victoria A Idzardi


      Chapter 7


      #2.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 45

      Tentative Ruling:


      4/24/2019


      Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court is inclined to GRANT Trustee’s application for compensation of $1,000. GRANT Trustee’s application for expenses of $105.29.

      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Trustee to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Victoria A Idzardi Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-18909


      Deborah Voorhis Harmon


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Motion to Avoid Lien JUDICIAL LIEN with Habitat for Humanity San Bernardino Area, Inc.


      Also #4 EH   

      Docket 46

      Tentative Ruling:


      4/24/2019

      Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court having reviewed the motion, notice being proper, good cause appearing, and noting the lack of any opposition, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion avoiding the lien of Habitat for Humanity.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Deborah Voorhis Harmon Represented By Douglas A Plazak

      W. Derek May

      Movant(s):

      Deborah Voorhis Harmon Represented By Douglas A Plazak

      W. Derek May

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Deborah Voorhis Harmon


      Chapter 7

      Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

      11:00 AM

      6:17-18909


      Deborah Voorhis Harmon


      Chapter 7


      #4.00 Motion to Avoid Lien JUDICIAL LIEN with BCS Financial, LLC Also #3

      EH   


      Docket 48

      Tentative Ruling:


      4/24/2019

      Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court having reviewed the motion, notice being proper, good cause appearing, and noting the lack of any opposition, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion avoiding the lien of BCS Financial, LLC.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Deborah Voorhis Harmon Represented By Douglas A Plazak

      W. Derek May

      Movant(s):

      Deborah Voorhis Harmon Represented By Douglas A Plazak

      W. Derek May

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Deborah Voorhis Harmon


      Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander


      Chapter 7

      11:00 AM

      6:16-20298


      Donald Sutcliffe


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Motion for Order: (1) To Compel Turnover of Property of the Bankruptcy Estate; and (2) Establishing Procedure for Removal of Any Remaining Personal Property Not Removed by Debtor


      EH   


      Docket 51

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/23/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Donald Sutcliffe Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Movant(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By

      D Edward Hays David Wood Tinho Mang

      Trustee(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By

      D Edward Hays David Wood Tinho Mang

      11:00 AM

      6:16-19947


      Melissa Lynn Dixson


      Chapter 7


      #6.00 CONT Show Cause Hearing RE: [13] Motion For Contempt Violation Discharge Order


      From: 1/9/19, 2/27/19, 3/27/19 Also #6.1

      EH   


      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Movant(s):

      Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-19947


      Melissa Lynn Dixson


      Chapter 7


      #6.10 Order To Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed On David McCarthy, Individually And DBA Orange Capital Solutions For Failure To Appear And To Disgorge


      Also #6 EH   

      Docket 29


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:15-21418


      James Lloyd Walker


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 CONT Order To Show Cause Why The Debtor Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of The Court's Turnover Order


      From: 2/7/19, 2/27/19, 3/27/19 EH   

      Docket 138


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      James Lloyd Walker Represented By

      Andrew Edward Smyth

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

      11:00 AM

      6:13-17565


      Bertrand Tenke Kengni


      Chapter 7


      #8.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 71

      Tentative Ruling:


      4/24/2019


      Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court is inclined to GRANT Trustee’s application for compensation of

      $16,580.22. GRANT Trustee’s application for expenses of $451.39.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Trustee to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Bertrand Tenke Kengni Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

      Trustee(s):

      Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:14-16813


      M. A. Tabor


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:16-01128 Frealy v. Trotochau et al


      #9.00 CONT Application and Order for Appearance and Examination From: 12/5/18, 12/11/18, 12/20/18, 2/27/19, 3/27/19

      EH       


      Docket 53

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CHAPTER 13 FILED IN 19-13162 SY

      Tentative Ruling:

      Based on Trustee’s status report and supplement to the status report, and Debtor’s voluntary Chapter 13 petition on April 15th, 2019 (Case No. 6:19-bk-13162-SY), the Court GRANTS Trustee’s request that this hearing be taken off calendar.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      M. A. Tabor Represented By

      Judith Runyon

      Defendant(s):

      Robin Sherrie Trotochau Pro Se

      Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc. Represented By

      Leib M Lerner

      Movant(s):

      Todd A. Frealy Represented By Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith

      Plaintiff(s):

      Todd A. Frealy Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      M. A. Tabor


      Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith


      Chapter 7

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman Lindsey L Smith

      2:00 PM

      6:18-15107


      Jesus Davila Romero


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01203 Frealy v. Davila et al


      #10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01203. Complaint by Todd Frealy against Lorena Davila, Jesse L. Davila, Jesus Davila Romero. (Charge To Estate $350.00). (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Coversheet) Nature of Suit: 91- Declaratory judgment, 11- Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property, 31- Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co- owner - 363(h)


      From: 12/12/18, 2/6/19 EH   

      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 4/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus Davila Romero Represented By Leonard Pena

      Defendant(s):

      Lorena Davila Pro Se

      Jesse L. Davila Pro Se

      Jesus Davila Romero Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Todd Frealy Represented By

      Carmela Pagay

      Trustee(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Jesus Davila Romero


      Carmela Pagay


      Chapter 7

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10939


      Vance Zachary Johnson


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01106 Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Johnson


      #11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01106. Complaint by Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC against Vance Zachary Johnson. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


      From: 7/10/18, 2/20/19 EH       

      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/3/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

      Defendant(s):

      Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

      Plaintiff(s):

      Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC Represented By

      Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

      2:00 PM

      6:17-19010


      Sara Durham


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01020 SCE Federal Credit Union v. Durham


      #12.00 Motion to set aside RE: Entry Of Default Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) Also #13 & #14

      EH   


      Docket 50

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 4/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sara Durham Represented By

      Edgar P Lombera

      Defendant(s):

      Sara Durham Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Sara Durham Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

      Bruce P. Needleman

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:17-19010


      Sara Durham


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01020 SCE Federal Credit Union v. Durham


      #13.00 CONT Motion for Default Judgment From: 1/30/19, 2/27/19

      Also #12 & #14 EH   

      Docket 39

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 4/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:


      02/27/2019


      On October 30, 2017, Sara Durham ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On January 8, 2018, SCE Federal Credit Union ("Plaintiff") filed a non- dischargeability complaint against Debtor. On February 8, 2018, Debtor filed her answer to the complaint.


      On January 8, 2018, SCE Federal Credit Union filed a complaint asserting claims under §§ 523(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(14) against Sarah Durham (the "Complaint"). On May 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Debtor to respond to discovery. The Court granted the motion pursuant to an order entered June 6, 2018 (the "Production Order"). The Production Order further required Debtor to pay

      $1,013.50 to Plaintiff if she failed to produce documents. On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the answer of Debtor and for entry of default. On October 29, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion and issued an order striking the Debtor’s Answer. The Clerk of Court then entered default on October 31, 2018, on request of Plaintiff.


      On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default Judgment (the "Motion"). The initially set hearing was continued as a result of the federal government shutdown. On February 12, 2019, the Debtor filed a response to the Motion. The Debtor asserts, in pertinent part, that she has been receiving mental health treatment for depression, anxiety and stress since September 2017; that she relapsed into use of drugs and alcohol which resulted in her failure to respond to requests from Plaintiff and failure to attend hearings. Debtor further asserts that she

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Sara Durham


      Chapter 7

      has been in an inpatient treatment facility and was set to exit the facility on February 14, 2019. The Debtor requests additional time but does not specify what actions she will undertake to remedy the deficiencies that resulted in the striking of her Answer. The Debtor’s response is also not filed under penalty of perjury and attaches no evidence to corroborate the Debtor’s assertions.


      DISCUSSION


      The Court shall not rule on the Motion at this juncture. This Court requires a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of any request for entry of default judgment. In particular, where as here, the Plaintiff presumably seeks judgment on the three asserted claims in the Complaint it is insufficient to submit evidence to the Court with no analysis of how the evidence supports entry of judgment on all three claims. The Plaintiff provides no case authority and no analysis of the burdens and elements correspondent to each of the claims in the Complaint.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      Based on the foregoing, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the Motion for Plaintiff to supplement the Motion with Points and Authorities.

      Plaintiff to provide the Court with an estimate of time for when the pleadings can be filed.

      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sara Durham Represented By

      Edgar P Lombera

      Defendant(s):

      Sara Durham Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

      Bruce P. Needleman

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Sara Durham


      Chapter 7

      Plaintiff(s):

      SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

      Bruce P. Needleman

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:17-19010


      Sara Durham


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01020 SCE Federal Credit Union v. Durham


      #14.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by SCE Federal Credit Union against Sara Durham. (14 ),(14A) priority tax claims)), 62 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud


      From: 3/21/18, 6/27/18, 8/22/18, 10/24/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19


      Also #12 & #13 EH   

      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 4/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sara Durham Represented By

      Edgar P Lombera

      Defendant(s):

      Sara Durham Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      SCE Federal Credit Union Represented By

      Bruce P. Needleman

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:17-16417


      Robert H Mills, III


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:17-01225 Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. v. Mills, III


      #15.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01225. Complaint by Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. against Robert Harry Mills Jr.. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Langley, Christopher)


      From: 10/31/18, 1/30/19 EH   

      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/17/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Robert H Mills III Represented By

      Catherine Christiansen

      Defendant(s):

      Robert H. Mills III Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Liquid Capital Exchange, Inc. Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:17-13853


      Malik Muhammad Asif


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:17-01197 Itria Ventures, LLC v. Asif et al


      #16.00 Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01197. Complaint by Itria Ventures, LLC against Malik Muhammad Asif, Zobia Asif. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Chekian, Michael)


      From: 11/15/17, 12/6/17, 1/10/18, 6/6/18, 10/3/18, 11/7/18, 2/27/19


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Defendant(s):

      Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By David T Egli

      Zobia Asif Represented By

      David T Egli

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Zobia Asif Represented By

      Todd L Turoci

      Plaintiff(s):

      Itria Ventures, LLC Represented By Michael F Chekian

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Malik Muhammad Asif


      Chapter 7

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey

      2:00 PM

      6:17-13012


      Issa M Musharbash


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


      #17.00 Order to show cause why complaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution


      Also #18 EH   

      Docket 88


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Defendant(s):

      Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

      Amal Musharbash Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Plaintiff(s):

      Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

      Violette Musharbash Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:17-13012


      Issa M Musharbash


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


      #18.00 CONT Pre-Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01138. Complaint to Determine Non-Dischargeability of Debt by Phillip Musharbash , Violette Musharbash against Issa M Musharbbash , Amal Musharbbash


      From: 3/27/19 Also #17

      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Defendant(s):

      Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

      Amal Musharbash Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Plaintiff(s):

      Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

      Violette Musharbash Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Issa M Musharbash


      Chapter 7

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:13-18779


      Rigoberto Baez


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 CONT Motion For Order Denying Discharge Or Dismissing Case From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19, 3/14/19, 4/11/19

      EH   


      Docket 172

      Tentative Ruling:

      1/31/19

      BACKGROUND


      On May 17, 2013, Rigoberto Baez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 25, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was subsequently amended on two occasions.


      On December 6, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of final cure mortgage payment. On December 27, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. filed a response, stating that Debtor was

      $11,338.57 delinquent in post-confirmation payments.


      On December 28, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to deny discharge or, in the alternative, dismiss the case. Because Trustee has only provided legal analysis support dismissal of the case, not citing any legal basis to deny a discharge in this situation, the Court will consider the motion as a motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The opposition asserts that Debtor disputes Wells Fargo’s accounting, and that Debtor will work with Wells Fargo to resolve the situation.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Rigoberto Baez


      Chapter 13

      DISCUSSION



      As noted by Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(6) states:


      1. Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including ---


      (6) material default by the debtor with respect to a term of a confirmed plan


      Trustee asserts that direct payments to Wells Fargo are payments under the plan, and the default in this case is material. Debtor has not provided any contrary legal authority on either point. The Court agrees with Trustee that direct payments to a lender are still considered payments under the plan. See, e.g., In Matter of Kessley, 655 Fed. Appx. 242, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); see also In re Evans, 543 B.R. 213 (Bankr.

      E.D. Va. 2016) (collecting cases). The Court also agrees that the post-confirmation default of $11,338.57 is material, assuming that that figure is accurate.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      Debtor to apprise the Court of the status of the post-confirmation delinquency and any efforts to resolve the situation with Wells Fargo. Absent resolution, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Rigoberto Baez


      Chapter 13

      Rigoberto Baez Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:14-19319


      Edward Jennings Kidwell


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Motion for Allowance of Administrative Claim re Eagle Logistics & Warehousing Inc


      EH   


      Docket 116


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Edward Jennings Kidwell Represented By Tyson Takeuchi Scott Kosner

      Movant(s):

      Eagle Logistics dba Eagle Logistics Represented By

      Lazaro E Fernandez

      William Foody Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:15-13351


      Hector Davalos Nuno and Nanci Tomoye Nuno


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 Application for Compensation for Additional Fees and Related Expenses in a Pending Chapter 13 Case Subject to a RARA with attached Exhibit A and Proof of Service for Jenny L Doling, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 2/6/2019 to 3/14/2019, Fee: $1250.00, Expenses: $0.


      EH   


      Docket 75


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Hector Davalos Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Nanci Tomoye Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Movant(s):

      Hector Davalos Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Nanci Tomoye Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-17683


      Cresencio Villamayor Irasusta, III and Jennifer P Irasusta


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


      EH   


      Docket 56


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Cresencio Villamayor Irasusta III Represented By

      Carey C Pickford

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer P Irasusta Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-18372


      Gene Ashley Heisser, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 Stipulation Modifying Plan EH   

      Docket 121


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Gene Ashley Heisser Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-13599


      Maurice Frank Manceau


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 Application for Compensation of Attorney for Debtor for Additional Fees and Related Expenses in a Pending Chapter 13 Case Subject to a RARA with attached Exhibits and Proof of Service for Jenny L Doling, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 12/5/2018 to 3/6/2019, Fee: $930.00, Expenses: $0.


      EH   


      Docket 99


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Movant(s):

      Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-19614


      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


      Chapter 13


      #7.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


      From: 4/11/19 EH   

      Docket 67

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Movant(s):

      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-19892


      Lena Dolores Wade


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 Application for Compensation of Attorney for Debtor for Additional Fees and Related Expenses in a Pending Chapter 13 Case Subject to a RARA with attached Exhibit A and Proof of Service for Jenny L Doling, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/15/2018 to 10/24/2018, Fee: $1630.00, Expenses: $0.


      EH   


      Docket 53


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lena Dolores Wade Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Movant(s):

      Lena Dolores Wade Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-20487


      Ann Marie Smith


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 Stipulation Modifying Plan EH   

      Docket 74


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-12170


      Pamela Ann Harris


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case Also #11

      EH   


      Docket 59

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/23/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pamela Ann Harris Represented By Halli B Heston

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-12170


      Pamela Ann Harris


      Chapter 13


      #11.00 Application for Compensation of Attorney for Debtor for Additional Fees and Related Expenses for Halli B Heston, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 6/15/2018 to 3/7/2019, Fee: $2,128.50, Expenses: $108.34.


      Also #10 EH   

      Docket 57


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/25/2019


      Service: Proper

      Opposition: Yes


      The Court has reviewed Applicant’s requested compensation for fees in the amount of $2,128.50 and finds it excessive in light of the lack of complexity of the relief from stay motion and the opposition. The Court is thus inclined to grant Applicant’s request for compensation for fees in the reduced amount of $1,728.50.


      The Court has also reviewed Applicant’s requested compensation for expenses in the amount of $108.34 and finds it generally reasonable.


      The Court is inclined to GRANT Applicant’s request for fees in the reduced amount of $1,728.50, and expenses in the amount of $108.34, for a total of

      $1.836.84.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Movant may not appear and will be deemed to submit to the tentative.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pamela Ann Harris Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Movant(s):


      Pamela Ann Harris


      Halli B Heston


      Chapter 13

      Pamela Ann Harris Represented By Halli B Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-16811


      Donna Roberto


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 Application for Compensation , with Notice of Hearing, and proof of service for Todd L Turoci, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 8/13/2018 to 2/28/2019, Fee:

      $25,710.00, Expenses: $15.15.


      CASE DISMISSED 3/28/19


      EH   


      Docket 59


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Donna Roberto Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Donna Roberto Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17003


      Jose Gacho Ruidera, Jr. and Maria Genalyn Raneses


      Chapter 13


      #13.00 Application for Compensation for Dana Travis, Debtor's Attorney, Period: to, Fee: $950.00, Expenses: $.0.00


      EH   


      Docket 50


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/25/2019


      Service: Proper

      Opposition: Yes


      Under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3)(III) the benefit or necessity of services to the estate is determined in light of their benefit at the time that the services were provided. At the time that Debtors filed their motion through Applicant the only evidence they had that the statute of limitations had passed on the claim was the Debtors’ declaration as to when they had last made payment. This is clearly insufficient to meet the burden of proof, even when viewed at the time of the filing of the objection. Debtors alleged that the claim was suspicious, as the date of last transaction on the account was exactly one day within the four-year statute of limitations for credit card debt. However, even in light of this, the objection was still deficient. As such, the Court finds that the service to the estate for which compensation for fees is being requested served no benefit to the estate at the time of filing.


      The Court is inclined to DENY Applicant’s request for compensation in the amount of $950.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED, or Movant may not appear and be deemed to consent to denial

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Gacho Ruidera Jr. Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Jose Gacho Ruidera, Jr. and Maria Genalyn Raneses

      Dana Travis


      Chapter 13

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Genalyn Raneses Ruidera Represented By

      Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Jose Gacho Ruidera Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

      Maria Genalyn Raneses Ruidera Represented By

      Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18809


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 CONT Motion Re: Objection to Claim Number 3 by Claimant IRS From: 1/10/19, 2/7/19, 3/28/19, 4/11/19

      Also #15 EH   

      Docket 28

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL FILED 4/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Movant(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18809


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


      From: 12/20/18, 1/10/19, 2/7/19, 3/28/19, 4/11/19


      Also #14 EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20002


      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


      From: 1/31/19, 2/7/19, 2/28/19, 3/28/19, 4/11/19 EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20200


      Denise Cherie Darden


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 2/7/19, 2/28/19, 3/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Denise Cherie Darden Represented By Julie Philippi

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20238


      Efrain Padron


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19, 3/14/19, 4/11/19 EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20296


      Daniel Lee Crump


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19, 3/14/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10047


      Jose Antonio Contreras and Mayra Lorena Contreras


      Chapter 13


      #20.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/14/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Antonio Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mayra Lorena Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10084


      Sandra Luz Torres


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

      Docket 40

      Tentative Ruling:


      4/25/2019


      SERVICE: Improper

      OPPOSITION: YEs

      The Court is inclined to DENY this motion under FRCP 60(b).


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Sandra Luz Torres Represented By Jason B Cruz

      Movant(s):

      Sandra Luz Torres Represented By Jason B Cruz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10445


      Abidan Aceves and Cindy Aceves


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/28/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Abidan Aceves Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Cindy Aceves Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10564


      Fermisa Ong Yang


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 4/11/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Fermisa Ong Yang Represented By Ivan Trahan

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10655


      Alexander Joo


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/15/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alexander Joo Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10657


      Jose Luis Garcia


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/15/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Luis Garcia Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10669


      Michael Anthony Delgado, III


      Chapter 13


      #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michael Anthony Delgado III Represented By Gary S Saunders

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10684


      Rodrigo Flores Saavedra and Juana Garcia De Flores


      Chapter 13


      #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Rodrigo Flores Saavedra Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Juana Garcia De Flores Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10687


      Roslyn Marie Davis


      Chapter 13


      #28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/1/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Roslyn Marie Davis Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10742


      Joshua Michael Thomson and Katherine Naomi Thomson


      Chapter 13


      #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Joshua Michael Thomson Represented By Edward G Topolski

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Katherine Naomi Thomson Represented By Edward G Topolski

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10773


      Stacie Lynn Tellez


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Stacie Lynn Tellez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10821


      Gregory Johnson


      Chapter 13


      #31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Gregory Johnson Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10822


      Jason Leroy Albaugh and Jamie Lean Albaugh


      Chapter 13


      #32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jason Leroy Albaugh Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jamie Lean Albaugh Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10849


      Vincent James Carabba


      Chapter 13


      #33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Vincent James Carabba Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10853


      Jo Dee Bennett


      Chapter 7


      #34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 3/21/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jo Dee Bennett Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10903


      Anita Mojica Rodriguez


      Chapter 13


      #35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/15/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Anita Mojica Rodriguez Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10922


      Carlos G Rodriguez and Rita S Rodriguez


      Chapter 13


      #36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Carlos G Rodriguez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rita S Rodriguez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10932


      Malta Centeno Lambert


      Chapter 13


      #37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Malta Centeno Lambert Represented By Yelena Gurevich

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10934


      Jorge Ramirez and Evelia Ramirez


      Chapter 13


      #38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jorge Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Evelia Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10939


      Jennifer Meador


      Chapter 13


      #39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/25/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Meador Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10956


      Anthony Santiago Ramos and Lena Marie Ramos


      Chapter 13


      #40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Anthony Santiago Ramos Represented By Kristin R Lamar

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lena Marie Ramos Represented By Kristin R Lamar

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10989


      Steven Richard Bannow and Kristy Dale Bannow


      Chapter 13


      #41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Steven Richard Bannow Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kristy Dale Bannow Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10990


      David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


      Chapter 13


      #42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      David Sandoval Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11017


      Nora Munoz


      Chapter 13


      #43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/1/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nora Munoz Represented By

      William Radcliffe

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11023


      Keary A. Harris and Kimberly H. Olson-Harris


      Chapter 13


      #44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Keary A. Harris Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kimberly H. Olson-Harris Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11041


      Caleb J. Bellot and Mandle Lynn Bellot


      Chapter 13


      #45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Caleb J. Bellot Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mandle Lynn Bellot Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11371


      Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


      Chapter 13


      #46.00 Show Order To Show Cause Why Lionel Giron Should Not Be Sanctioned In The Amount Of $1000


      Also #47


      EH   


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11371


      Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


      Chapter 13


      #47.00 Motion to Disallow Claims Re: Proof of Claim No. 1 Also #46

      EH   


      Docket 35

      Tentative Ruling:


      4/25/2019


      Service: Proper


      Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISALLOWING Claim 1 in its entirety.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Movant(s):

      Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall

      Lionel E Giron


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11503


      Juan Manuel Andrade


      Chapter 13


      #48.00 Motion Debtor's ExParte Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Chapter 13 Case


      EH   


      Docket 15

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/22/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Juan Manuel Andrade Represented By James D Cuzzolina

      Movant(s):

      Juan Manuel Andrade Represented By James D Cuzzolina James D Cuzzolina

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11710


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13


      #49.00 Motion for Order Determining Value of Collateral [11 U.S.C. § 506(a), FRBP 3012]: 2015 Chrysler 200


      EH   


      Docket 25


      Tentative Ruling:


      According to the court in In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008)., the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points for property valuation because the text of 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


      Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party value of the Chrysler 200. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


      4/25/2019


      SERVICE: PROPER


      OPPOSITION: NONE


      The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings for supplemental evidence. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Movant(s):

      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Matthew D. Resnik


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-12218


      Keionna Marie Pitts


      Chapter 13


      #50.00 Motion to Avoid Junior Lien with Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC EH   

      Docket 12

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/25/2019

      SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: NONE

      The Court having reviewed the motion, and noting the consent of MERS, is inclined to GRANT the motion, avoiding the junior lien of MERS upon completion of the Chapter 13 plan.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Keionna Marie Pitts Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Keionna Marie Pitts Represented By Dana Travis Dana Travis Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-12398


      Jerry Melendrez and Laura Therese Melendrez


      Chapter 13


      #51.00 Motion for Setting Property Value EH   

      Docket 13

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/25/2019


      SERVICE: PROPER


      OPPOSITION: NONE


      The Court is inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion to value their 2013 Dodge Avenger at $5,470.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jerry Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Laura Therese Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Movant(s):

      Jerry Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Laura Therese Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Jerry Melendrez and Laura Therese Melendrez


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-17280


      Charles J. Smith


      Chapter 13


      #52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 129


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Charles J. Smith Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-18349


      Fabiola Adame


      Chapter 13


      #53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 214


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Fabiola Adame Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-21548


      Chi Kan Yu


      Chapter 13


      #54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 162

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Chi Kan Yu Represented By

      Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-22033


      Shyla L. Montgomery


      Chapter 13


      #55.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 100

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      4/8/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Shyla L. Montgomery Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-22294


      Jonathan William Nicastro


      Chapter 13


      #56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 161


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jonathan William Nicastro Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-12191


      Valicia LaShawn Fennell


      Chapter 13


      #57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 98


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Valicia LaShawn Fennell Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-14440


      Michael Douglas Guerino and Xochitl Rodriguez Guerino


      Chapter 13


      #58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 88


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michael Douglas Guerino Represented By James D Cuzzolina

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Xochitl Rodriguez Guerino Represented By James D Cuzzolina

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-17215


      Carmen Saucedo


      Chapter 13


      #59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 50


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Carmen Saucedo Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-20925


      Reynauldo J Pennywell and Joyce D Pennywell


      Chapter 13


      #60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Reynauldo J Pennywell Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Joyce D Pennywell Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-21234


      Frank A Horzen and Barbara A Horzen


      Chapter 13


      #61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 118


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Frank A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Barbara A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-10082


      Francisco R Palacios


      Chapter 13


      #62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 189


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Francisco R Palacios Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-10667


      Louis Gutierrez


      Chapter 13


      #63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 81


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Louis Gutierrez Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-10787


      Willie J Brooks


      Chapter 13


      #64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency Also #65

      EH   


      Docket 48


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Willie J Brooks Represented By Kevin Tang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-10787


      Willie J Brooks


      Chapter 13


      #65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Infeasibility of Plan Also #64

      EH   


      Docket 49


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Willie J Brooks Represented By Kevin Tang

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-10811


      Manuel Huertas


      Chapter 13


      #66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Manuel Huertas Represented By Marcella Lucente

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-11760


      Jose Tinoco and Monica Tinoco


      Chapter 13


      #67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 29


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Tinoco Represented By

      Juanita V Miller

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Monica Tinoco Represented By Juanita V Miller

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-11901


      Jose Camacho Payan and Erika Vanessa Payan


      Chapter 13


      #68.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Camacho Payan Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Erika Vanessa Payan Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15122


      Keith F Keating


      Chapter 13


      #69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 52

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 3/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Keith F Keating Represented By Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15524


      Thanaa Victor Fransis


      Chapter 13


      #70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Thanaa Victor Fransis Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15662


      Jemill M Humphrey


      Chapter 13


      #71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 65

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jemill M Humphrey Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15893


      Joseph Manuel Ruiz and Shannon Elizabeth Ruiz


      Chapter 13


      #72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 46


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Joseph Manuel Ruiz Represented By April E Roberts

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Shannon Elizabeth Ruiz Represented By April E Roberts

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-17316


      Luis Fernando Montoya, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 80

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      4/4/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis Fernando Montoya Jr. Represented By Anthony B Vigil

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-17589


      Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


      Chapter 13


      #74.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/14/19, 4/11/19

      EH   


      Docket 69

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/22/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-17806


      Gerald Curtis Collins and Valerie Cecelia Collins


      Chapter 13


      #75.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19

      EH   


      Docket 58


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Gerald Curtis Collins Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Valerie Cecelia Collins Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-19890


      Katrina Renee McDowell


      Chapter 13


      #76.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 57


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Katrina Renee McDowell Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-10112


      Eddie Garcia and Martha Garcia


      Chapter 13


      #77.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19

      EH   


      Docket 56


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Eddie Garcia Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Martha Garcia Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-10636


      Alejandro J. Casillas and Patricia Casillas


      Chapter 13


      #78.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19

      EH   


      Docket 39

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/23/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alejandro J. Casillas Represented By Tina H Trinh

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Patricia Casillas Represented By Tina H Trinh

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-11403


      Dony M Portillo and Raquel A Portillo


      Chapter 13


      #79.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 50


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Dony M Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Raquel A Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee Andrea Liddick

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-12022


      Maribel M Vasquez


      Chapter 13


      #80.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Maribel M Vasquez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-12447


      Justina Renteria


      Chapter 13


      #81.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19

      EH   


      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/23/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Justina Renteria Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-13163


      Michael D Hayden, II and Joanna Queen Hayden


      Chapter 13


      #82.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michael D Hayden II Represented By Sunita N Sood Seema N Sood

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Joanna Queen Hayden Represented By Sunita N Sood Seema N Sood

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-13483


      JUANITA M ROMERO


      Chapter 13


      #83.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      JUANITA M ROMERO Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-15192


      Everett T Cain


      Chapter 13


      #84.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Everett T Cain Represented By April E Roberts

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-16178


      Eriberto A. Sandoval


      Chapter 13


      #85.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Eriberto A. Sandoval Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-16680


      Tanisha S. Santee


      Chapter 13


      #86.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Tanisha S. Santee Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-16694


      Cynthia M Gonzalez and Guadalupe Siddiqui


      Chapter 13


      #87.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Cynthia M Gonzalez Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Guadalupe Siddiqui Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-16983


      Lakendra Johnson


      Chapter 13


      #88.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 44


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lakendra Johnson Represented By Neil R Hedtke

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-16996


      Gabriel Cruz


      Chapter 13


      #89.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Gabriel Cruz Represented By

      Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17307


      Rita Denise Pappalardo and Steven Joseph Pappalardo


      Chapter 13


      #90.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 49

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/23/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rita Denise Pappalardo Represented By Aaron Lloyd

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Steven Joseph Pappalardo Represented By Aaron Lloyd

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17597


      David Meisland


      Chapter 13


      #91.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19

      EH   


      Docket 36

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Meisland Represented By Nima S Vokshori

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17676


      Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez


      Chapter 13


      #92.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19

      EH   


      Docket 30


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-17784


      David John Stoykovich, Jr. and Merlina Lynn Burton


      Chapter 13


      #93.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/18

      EH   


      Docket 30


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      David John Stoykovich Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Merlina Lynn Burton Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-18739


      Heather Gibson


      Chapter 13


      #94.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 28

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heather Gibson Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-19011


      Riley Oneill Adamson


      Chapter 13


      #95.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Riley Oneill Adamson Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-19044


      Kimberly Ida McGee Hager


      Chapter 13


      #96.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 23


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Kimberly Ida McGee Hager Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-19358


      Erik A Morales


      Chapter 13


      #97.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 29


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-19781


      Adolfo Nabor


      Chapter 13


      #98.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Adolfo Nabor Represented By

      Jaime G Monteclaro

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #1.00 Emergency motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


      EH   


      Docket 13

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13132


      RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


      Chapter 11


      #2.00 Emergency motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


      EH   


      Docket 10

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13130


      9 FINGERS INC


      Chapter 11


      #3.00 Emergency motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


      EH   


      Docket 12

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      9 FINGERS INC Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13133

      WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.

      Chapter 11

      #4.00 Emergency motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection

      EH   

      Docket 10

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13241


      Tonette Sherie Bell


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 23608 Blooming Meadow Rd Moreno Valley, CA 92557


      MOVANT: ROBERT MAY


      EH   


      Docket 7


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(4) based on multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property and because the mailing list filed by Debtor appears to list Movant as the only creditor. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 11. GRANT request under ¶ 9 "upon recording of a copy of this order or giving appropriate notice of its entry in compliance with applicable nonbankruptcy law." DENY request under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tonette Sherie Bell Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Robert May Represented By

      Barry L O'Connor

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Tonette Sherie Bell


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13055


      Christopher Mata


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 248 Lauren Ct., Lake Elsinore, CA 92530


      MOVANT: 2018-2 IH BORROWER LP


      EH   


      Docket 8

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 4/25/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Christopher Mata Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      2018-2 IH Borrower LP Represented By Scott Andrews

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12871


      Roger Adams


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 3207 Crystal Lake Court, Ontario, Ca


      MOVANT: PLAN RIVER INVESTMENT, LLC


      CASE DISMISSED 4/23/19


      EH   


      Docket 7


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (4). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 11. GRANT request under ¶ 9 "upon recording of a copy of this order or giving appropriate notice of its entry in compliance with applicable nonbankruptcy law." DENY request under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Roger Adams Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Plan River Investments LLC Represented By Helen G Long

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Roger Adams


      Chapter 7

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12755


      Salvador Caridad Rodriguez


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property: 29212 Mesa Crest Way, Menifee, CA 92584


      MOVANT: SALVADOR CARIDAD RODRIGUEZ


      EH   


      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court, having reviewed the motion, finds the evidence submitted in support of the motion, in the form of a declaration of Debtor, to be lacking the detail and specificity necessary to rebut the statutory presumption that the case is filed in bad faith.

      Specifically, the Court notes that 11 U.S.C. § 363(c)(3)(C) requires that the presumption of bad faith be rebutted by "clean and convincing" evidence; Debtor’s declaration is cursory and devoid of details.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Salvador Caridad Rodriguez Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Movant(s):

      Salvador Caridad Rodriguez Represented By Steven A Alpert

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Salvador Caridad Rodriguez


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12664


      Donna L Hillard


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Toyota Camry LE Sedan


      MOVANT: THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Donna L Hillard Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Movant(s):

      THE GOLDEN ONE CREDIT Represented By Mirco J Haag

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12467


      Sheila Marie Malone


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 33249 Newbury Street, Yucaipa, CA 92399


      MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


      CASE DISMISSED 4/15/19


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      Noting that the instant case was dismissed on April 15, 2019, the Court is inclined to GRANT the request under ¶ 4, confirming that the automatic stay is not in effect. The Court is also inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) because (1) the instant case is the third bankruptcy filing by the borrowers which was summarily dismissed in the last seven months; and (2) Movant is the only creditor listed on the schedules. The Court is inclined to DENY all remaining requests for relief as moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sheila Marie Malone Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By

      Dane W Exnowski

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Sheila Marie Malone


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12319


      Jaime Urena and Jennifer Urena


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F3 3HA0 87464


      MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jaime Urena Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Urena Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Jaime Urena and Jennifer Urena


      Chapter 7

      AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

      Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11992


      Pablo Cornejo


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 31945 Daniel Way, Temecula, CA 92591


      MOVANT: PABLO CORNEJO


      EH   


      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court, having reviewed the motion, noting the lack of opposition, service being proper and good cause appearing, is inclined to GRANT the motion, IMPOSING the automatic stay as to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pablo Cornejo Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Pablo Cornejo Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11952


      Rheanna Leigh Frey


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 41940 Whittier Ave., Hemet, CA 92544


      MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC


      EH   


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rheanna Leigh Frey Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By Christina J O

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11851


      Richard Mills, Jr. and April Evette Humphrey


      Chapter 7


      #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 1930 W College Avenue, #111, San Bernardino, CA


      MOVANT: BROADSTONE INVESTORS LLC


      EH   


      Docket 15


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The instant bankruptcy case was filed on March 7, 2019. Postpetition, Movant caused a notice to quit to be served on Debtor, and also commenced an unlawful detainer proceeding. The Court notes that in multiple sections of the instant motion, Movant has misrepresented the date that the unlawful detainer was filed, incorrectly stating that it was filed on March 2 (prepetition), when the attached exhibits indicate that the action was filed on March 27 (postpetition). Because both the notice to quit and the unlawful detainer action were executed in violation of the automatic stay, these acts are void and of no effect; the void acts cannot serve as the basis for relief from the automatic stay. Furthermore, because the time to assume or reject the lease pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365 has not yet expired, a postpetition breach of the lease cannot constitute grounds for relief from stay. For all of the above reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion in its entirety.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard Mills Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Richard Mills, Jr. and April Evette Humphrey


      Chapter 7

      Joint Debtor(s):

      April Evette Humphrey Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Movant(s):

      Broadstone Investors LLC Represented By Helen G Long

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11436


      Timothy Lee Turner


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 13746 Coldwater Ct Corona, CA 92880


      MOVANT: QIANG QUO, LING GUO


      From: 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 13

      Tentative Ruling:


      April 16, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: None

      Movant’s motion for relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) is GRANTED. Movant’s request for waiver of FBRP 4001(a)(3) is GRANTED. Movant’s request at

      ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to obtain possession of the property is GRANTED.

      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Timothy Lee Turner Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Guo, Ling Qiang Represented By Barry L O'Connor

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Timothy Lee Turner


      Chapter 7

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-11136


      Jesus Ruben De Lara, Jr


      Chapter 7


      #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA SEDAN


      MOVANT: VW CREDIT INC


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus Ruben De Lara Jr Represented By Edgar P Lombera

      Movant(s):

      VW CREDIT, INC. Represented By Darren J Devlin

      Trustee(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-10627


      Ricky Dean Moore


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Ford Econo Cutaway, VIN: 1FDWE3FL8GDC45612


      MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ricky Dean Moore Represented By Alon Darvish

      Movant(s):

      Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Ricky Dean Moore


      Chapter 7

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-19956


      Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Toyota Corolla


      MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 36

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Herman A. Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Monica Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

      Austin P Nagel

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-19494


      Rachel Ann Sullivan


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1807 Church St Redlands, CA 92374


      MOVANT: CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY (NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, DBA)


      EH    


      Docket 28


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions and payment of property taxes.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rachel Ann Sullivan Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Movant(s):

      Champion Mortgage Company, et al Represented By

      Asya Landa

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-19044


      Kimberly Ida McGee Hager


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 32392 Scandia Drive, Running Springs, California 92382


      MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC


      EH   


      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears and adequate protection discussions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kimberly Ida McGee Hager Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Movant(s):

      PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By Robert P Zahradka

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-18869


      Arturo Garcia, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15527 Villa Del Rio Road, California 92337


      MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA N.A.


      EH   


      Docket 29


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper as to Debtor Opposition: Yes


      Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Arturo Garcia Jr. Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Movant(s):

      Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Asya Landa

      Diana Torres-Brito

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-17597


      David Meisland


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 26818 Montseratt Court, Murrieta, California 92563


      MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


      From: 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 39


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/26/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Meisland Represented By Nima S Vokshori

      Movant(s):

      DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL Represented By

      Sean C Ferry

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-15131


      Arcy B Gonzales and Margarita B Gonzales


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 53194 Monaco Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92532


      MOVANT: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


      From: 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 42

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/29/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Arcy B Gonzales Represented By Laleh Ensafi

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Arcy B Gonzales and Margarita B Gonzales


      Chapter 13

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Margarita B Gonzales Represented By Laleh Ensafi

      Movant(s):

      The Bank of New York Mellon Represented By Darlene C Vigil

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-15051


      Rueben Anthony Castro and Adrian Marie Castro


      Chapter 7


      #20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 7437 Camarilla Ave, Yucca Valley, California 92284


      MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC


      EH   


      Docket 54


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rueben Anthony Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Adrian Marie Castro Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Rueben Anthony Castro and Adrian Marie Castro


      Chapter 7

      PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By Robert P Zahradka

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-14867


      Richard Cornelius and Naomi Rodriguez-Cornelius


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe, VIN: 5XYZW3LA0DG021426


      MOVANT:WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.


      EH   


      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard Cornelius Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Naomi Rodriguez-Cornelius Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang Sheryl K Ith

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-14278


      David Bruce Bremer and Tina Marie Bremer


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15522 Garnet Ct, Fontana, CA 92337


      MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


      EH   


      Docket 61

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      4/5/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Bruce Bremer Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Tina Marie Bremer Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-13793


      Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE, VIN:1C4R JECG 5GC3 44961


      MOVANT: MECHANICS BANK


      From: 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 52

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno


      Chapter 13

      MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-13481


      Rorye James Mosley, Sr.


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Toyota Tundra


      MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 48


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). DENY request for relief from § 362(d)(2) stay for lack of cause shown. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under

      ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rorye James Mosley Sr. Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Movant(s):

      Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

      Austin P Nagel

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Rorye James Mosley, Sr.


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-13292


      Bernice Hernandez Antunez


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2180 Cordillera Avenue, Colton, CA 92324


      MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      From: 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 25


      Tentative Ruling:

      4/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from the co-debtor stay under § 1301(a). GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Bernice Hernandez Antunez Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Bernice Hernandez Antunez


      Nancy L Lee


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-18786


      Edgar Raymond Domingue, Sr.


      Chapter 13


      #26.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4424 San Jose St, 13, Montclair, CA 91763-1756


      MOVANT: CITIBANK, N.A.


      EH   


      Docket 44

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Edgar Raymond Domingue Sr. Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

      Movant(s):

      Citibank, N.A. Represented By Robert P Zahradka

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-17402


      Thomas Lee Abercrombie and Rebecca Anne Abercrombie


      Chapter 13


      #27.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2009 Honda Odyssey EX- L Minivan 4D


      MOVANT: BALBOA THRIFT & LOAN


      From: 3/26/19 EH   

      Docket 88


      Tentative Ruling:

      3/26/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Thomas Lee Abercrombie Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rebecca Anne Abercrombie Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Movant(s):

      Balboa Thrift & Loan Represented By Keith E Herron

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Thomas Lee Abercrombie and Rebecca Anne Abercrombie


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-17189


      Earma Denise Young Washington and Marvin Ray


      Chapter 13


      #28.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 18642 Lakepoint Drive, Riverside, CA 92503


      MOVANT: LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC


      EH   


      Docket 70

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

      Brad Weil

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

      Movant(s):

      loanDepot.com, LLC, and its Represented By Christina J O

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:16-16909


      Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


      Chapter 13


      #29.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 9617 Surrey Ave, Montclair, California 91763


      MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      From: 1/29/19, 2/26/19, 3/26/19, 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 234

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/18/19

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      1/29/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Edward Edmund Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Georgia Parrilla Zozaya Represented By Dana Travis

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Edward Edmund Zozaya and Georgia Parrilla Zozaya


      Chapter 13

      Wells Fargo BAnk, N.A. Represented By April Harriott Sean C Ferry

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:15-19930


      Melinda Kay Allen


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 CONT Amended Motion (related document(s): 60 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11139 Laurel Ave., Bloomington CA 92316 . filed by Creditor US Bank Trust National Association as Trustee of IGSC Series II Trust) (Zilberstein, Kristin)


      MOVANT: US BANK TRUST NA


      From: 1/15/19, 3/26/19, 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 62

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 4/29/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      01/15/2019

      Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


      The Debtor, after seemingly failing to make payments to Movant for several months, now seeks a continuance based on a loan modification request that she has not yet submitted for review. The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for termination of the co-debtor stay based on lack of service on any co-debtor and lack of evidence as to identity of alleged co-debtor. GRANT request under ¶3. DENY request for APO as moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Melinda Kay Allen Represented By Steven A Alpert

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Melinda Kay Allen


      Chapter 13

      US Bank Trust National Association Represented By

      Kristin A Zilberstein Michelle R Ghidotti

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:19-11267


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      #31.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Causes of Action .


      MOVANT: ANDRZEJ LUCZYNSKI AND Z&M TRADING, INC.


      From: 4/16/19 EH   

      Docket 38

      Tentative Ruling: 4/30/2019

      Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.


      On February 19, 2019, Anthony Yue Ming Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Andrzej Luczynski ("Movant") as the holder of an unsecured claim of $1,380,000 relating to a civil lawsuit.


      On March 12, 2019, Movant filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for tortious exclusion of joint venturer, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and wrongful eviction. A state court hearing on Debtor’s objections to the tentative decision and proposed judgment had been scheduled for February 20, 2019, but was ultimately postponed due to the instant bankruptcy filing. It appears from the contents of the motion that Movant is only requesting to have the state court enter judgment, thereby liquidating Movant’s claim.


      On April 2, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The crux of Debtor’s opposition is that the relief from the automatic stay is unnecessary because Movant’s claim has been effectively liquidated. Debtor notes that "[t]he only issue remaining is a determination of any costs and attorney’s fees, which Debtor has attempted to review for

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11

      reasonableness in hopes that the parties could avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses regarding the same." [Dkt. No. 49, pg. 4, lines 10-12]. On April 9, 2019, Movant filed a reply, effectively arguing that Debtor’s opposition does not contain a legal basis upon which relief from stay could be denied.


      When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:

      1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

      2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

      3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."

      In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:

      The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu

      administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


      Chapter 11


      Here, the Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. First, the relief requested would result in a complete resolution of the issues. Debtor’s argument that relief from stay is not necessary to resolve the issue, because the issue could be resolved through the claim objection process in bankruptcy court, is not persuasive to the Court because it does not directly address the first Curtis factor and because, presumably, the state court is in a better position to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceedings. Likewise, the second factor weighs in favor of the relief requested because the entry of a judgment in state court will not interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Debtor has not raised a plausible argument contending otherwise. A choice by Debtor to possibly incur attorney fees arguing the amount of Movant’s fees and costs incurred in the state court proceeding does not constitute interference with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, the Court finds that the tenth through twelfth Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from stay, because the state court proceeding progressed to the point where it was ready for trial, and the state court is in a better position to judge the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceeding.


      The Court finds that the third through nonth Curtis factors are largely irrelevant in this situation and do not materially affect the Court’s analysis. Additionally, the Court is not inclined to find that the instant bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. Movant’s only argument made to support a bad faith finding is that the instant case was filed on the eve of the anticipated state court judgment. Noting that Debtor scheduled Movant’s claim and does not appear to be attempting to undermine the state court proceeding, the Court cannot conclude that Debtor is acting on bad faith simply because he is attempting to satisfy Movant’s claim through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.


      The Court is inclined to GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY request for relief under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Debtor(s):


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu

      Party Information


      Chapter 11

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Courtesy NEF Represented By Dawn M Coulson Paul M Stoddard Mark W Edelstein

      2:00 PM

      6:18-18339


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11


      #32.00 Motion to Disallow Claims 22 Julio Garcia, Jr. and 23 Julio Cesar Garcia Also #33

      EH   


      Docket 240

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019

      BACKGROUND:

      On October 2, 2018, Technology Solutions and Services, Inc. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor’s first amended disclosure statement was approved on March 11, 2019; the Chapter 11 plan confirmation hearing is currently set for May 7, 2019

      On November 2, 2018, Julio Garcia Jr., a manager of Debtor, and Julio Garcia Sr., the CFO of Debtor (collectively, "Claimants"), filed proof of claims for $725,758.59 ("Claim 22") and $555,787.43 ("Claim 23"), respectively. On March 27, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 22 and Claim 23. The basis of Debtor’s objection to both claims is that, after request by Debtor, Claimants have failed to provide sufficient documentation or information to enable Debtor to verify the validity and amount of the claims. Neither Claim 22 nor Claim 23 includes any supporting information.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi

      Chapter 11

      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(1) states:


      Except for a claim governed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision, when a claim, or an interest in property of the debtor securing the claim, is based on a writing, a copy of the writing shall be filed with the proof of claim. If the writing has been lost or destroyed, a statement of the circumstances of the loss or destruction shall be filed with the claim.


      In 2011, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(2)(D) was added, providing that failure to submit the required information may result in (i) the claimant being precluded from submitting such information in an adversary proceeding or claim objection; or (ii) other appropriate relief. Notably, Rule 3001(c)(2) only applies to individual cases. This has led to some confusion regarding the appropriate response to the failure to file supporting information for a proof of claim in a non-individual case. See 9 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 3001.01[2] (16th ed. 2015) ("Before the rule was amended in 2011, the effect of failure to provide proper documentation of a proof of claim resulted in the claim either being disallowed or losing its prima facie validity. A court may determine that these results are still proper since the revised rule clearly establishes explicit sanctions for individual cases. However, it seems logical to assume that courts, in exercise of their right to control evidence and to sanction improper behavior, may apply the Rule 3001(c)(2)(D) sanctions in non-individual debtor cases.").


      The Court simply relies on FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(f), which states: "A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim." Here, Claim 22 and Claim 23 are identified as being based on a loan, and Debtor has provided evidence indicating that these claims were based on a writing. Claimants have failed to file the information required by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(1) for claims based on a writing. Therefore,

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11

      Claim 22 and Claim 23 are not entitled to prima facie validity, and the burden is on Claimants to establish the validity of those claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Claimants have not opposed the instant objections, and, therefore, have not satisfied their burden.


      The Court also deems Claimant’s failure to oppose the claim objections to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 22 and Claim 23.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

      Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

      Movant(s):

      Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

      Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

      2:00 PM

      6:18-18339


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11


      #33.00 Motion for Order Disallowing Scheduled Claim of Blanca Garcia Also #32

      EH   


      Docket 243

      Tentative Ruling:

      4/30/2019

      BACKGROUND:


      On October 2, 2018, Technology Solutions and Services, Inc. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor’s first amended disclosure statement was approved on March 11, 2019; the Chapter 11 plan confirmation hearing is currently set for May 7, 2019


      On Schedule F, Debtor lists Blanca Garcia ("Claimant"), the CEO of Debtor, as holding an unsecured claim in the amount of $787,846.990; the basis of the claim is a loan maturing in December 2021. Claimant did not file a proof of claim related to this debt. The Court notes that Claimant did file a proof of claim, relating to unpaid salary, in the amount of $25,554.10.


      APPLICABLE LAW:

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:


      The Court notes that Debtor’s approach of objecting to a claim deemed filed through

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11

      the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a) and FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(b)(1), but not actually filed in the Court’s claim register, creates certain unique issues. The purpose of § 1111(a) is to streamline the Chapter 11 process when certain claims are uncontested by the debtor. See 7 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1111.02[1] (16th ed.

      2018) ("Section 1111(a) changes this general procedure for the limited case of uncontested claims and interests, allowing the holder of such a claim or interest to participate in the chapter 11 case notwithstanding the failure to file a proof of claim or interest."). It is inherently paradoxical for Debtor to file schedules indicating that it does not contest a certain claim, then object to its own schedules on the basis that it contests its own characterization of the claim. Instead, it would seem that the more appropriate procedural approach is illustrated as follows:


      The second alternative would have been for debtor to amend its schedules and designate the Varela "deemed allowed" claim as "disputed" so that it would lose its "deemed allowed" status. Debtor would then have had to give notice of the amendment to Varela and Inter Mountain as entities "affected thereby." Varela would have likely responded by filing a proof of claim. If the claims bar date had passed, the court would have had to exercise its authority under Rule 3003(c)(3) to extend the deadline for "cause." While a finding of "cause" is obviously discretionary, refusal to find "cause" in such circumstances would risk eviscerating § 1111(a) and creating a major opportunity to lull creditors into complacency by scheduling them with § 1111(a) "deemed allowed" status and then amending schedules after it is too late to file a claim. The proof of claim would then restore Varela’s "deemed allowed" status unless debtor were to file a Rule 3007 objection.


      In re Dynamic Brokers, Inc., 293 B.R. 489, 497-98 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).


      The problem with the approach selected by Debtor is that the supporting information requirements, and corresponding evidentiary effects of FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3002(c) and (f), do not apply when a claim is deemed allowed because it was scheduled by a Debtor. Debtor’s brief is unclear – the relevant legal analysis is identical to the

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11

      analysis provided in a second claim objection, which was based on lack of supporting information under Rule 3002(c). As a result, Debtor’s contention that Claimant has not provided adequate information or evidence to establish the nature and amount of its debt is irrelevant; the claim is prima facie valid, and Debtor has not provided any evidence or coherent argument to rebut the prima facie validity.


      Finally, the Court does not find it appropriate to construe the instant claim objection as a disavowal of Schedule F and Debtor’s previous acknowledgement of the scheduled claim. While a properly amended Schedule F may trigger the procedure outlined in In re Dynamic Brokers, construing the claim objection as obviating the statutory prima facie validity of the scheduled claim erodes Claimant’s due process. If Debtor had amended Schedule F, then Claimant would need to be notified of such amendment, and, presumably, provided a time frame to file a properly documented proof of claim. If Debtor objected to that filed claim, then Claimant would be afforded a second time period to provide further evidence establishing the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, Debtor has attempted to collapse those two time periods into a single, shortened period.


      Noting that the plan confirmation hearing is currently scheduled for May 7, 2019, it seems to the Court that the restriction of those time periods may have prompted this unique, inherently paradoxical approach.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to OVERRULE the objection.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11

      Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

      Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

      Movant(s):

      Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

      Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

      2:00 PM

      6:16-19993


      B & B Family, Incorporated


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:18-01116 Forte v. B & B Family, Incorporated


      #34.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01116. Complaint by Patricia Forte against B & B Family, Incorporated


      From: 7/24/18, 7/31/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 11/27/18, 1/29/19, 3/5/19


      EH   


      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 4/8/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

      Defendant(s):

      B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Plaintiff(s):

      Patricia Forte Represented By

      D Edward Hays Laila Masud

      2:00 PM

      6:16-19993


      B & B Family, Incorporated


      Chapter 11


      #35.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 12/13/16, 3/7/17, 5/30/17, 7/25/17, 9/26/17, 10/31/17, 11/7/17, 5/15/18, 8/21/18, 1/15/19, 3/5/19


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      B & B Family, Incorporated Represented By Todd L Turoci Julie Philippi

      3:00 PM

      6:18-15841


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


      Chapter 11


      #36.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 10 by Claimant Pacific Steel Group EH   

      Docket 228

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/7/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      Movant(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      11:00 AM

      6:18-16908


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11


      #1.00 CONT Motion To Compel Payment Of Administrative Rent Or Immediate Rejection Of Lease And Related Relief

      (HOLDING DATE)


      From: 11/27/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19, 3/27/19


      Also #2 EH   

      Docket 194

      Tentative Ruling:

      2/26/19

      BACKGROUND

      On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On November 2, 2018, The H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Berger Foundation") filed its motion to compel payment of administrative rent or immediate rejection of lease and related relief. On November 13, 2018, Debtor filed its opposition.

      The subject of the motion is a lease dated August 15, 2008, for certain nonresidential real property located in Palm Desert, California. According to Berger Foundation, "[p] ursuant to the terms of lease, should the Debtor continue to occupy the premises after August 14, 2018, the lease obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month," [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 2] a doubling of the contractual monthly rental obligation. Berger Foundation requests: (1) that Debtor be compelled to cure the default on the lease or surrender the premises; and (2) allowance of an administrative expense claim

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

      Chapter 11

      in the amount of $3,040.55 per day.


      Debtor’s opposition argued that: (1) the lease cannot be assumed or rejected because the lease expired the day before the petition date; and (2) because the lease expired prepetition, the legal basis for the requested administrative expense claim is invalid.


      On November 27, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the matter, and continue the hearing for three weeks for supplemental briefing. On December 18, 2018, the Court posted a tentative ruling prior to the continued hearing, indicating that it was inclined to hold that the lease terminated pre-petition, and, therefore, the lease was not an executory contract. The Court continued the matter again, allowing the parties the opportunity to further brief the matter, and to enable the parties to supplement the record to afford the Court the opportunity to assess Berger Foundation’s request for administrative rent.


      On January 18, 2019, Berger Foundation filed a supplement. On February 1, 2019, Debtor filed a response. Because Berger Foundation has not presented any new argument relating to 11 U.S.C. § 365, the Court is not inclined to modify its tentative, which is outlined in the first portion of the discussion section. Instead, the Court will address the parties’ arguments relating to 11 U.S.C. § 503.


      DISCUSSION



      I. 11 U.S.C. § 365


      The critical legal question at issue is whether the operative lease expired prepetition. Berger Foundation relies on 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) as the basis for both its requests, and that provision states:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11


      The trustee shall timely perform all the obligations of the debtor, except those specified in section 365(b)(2), arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, until such lease is assumed or rejected, notwithstanding section 503(b)(1) of this title. The court may extend, for cause, the time for performance of any such obligation that arises within 60 days after the date of the order for relief, but the time for performance shall not be extended beyond such 60-day period. This subsection shall not be deemed to affect the trustee’s obligations under the provisions of subsection (b) or (f) of the section. Acceptance of any such performance does not constitute waiver or relinquishment of the lessor’s rights under such lease or under this title.


      (emphasis added).


      As a general rule, an expired lease is no longer executory, and, therefore, is no longer assumable, if the lease expired prepetition. See, e.g., In re Acorn Invs., 8 B.R. 506, 509-10 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1981). Therefore, the Court must determine whether the lease at issue expired prepetition. See Robinson v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 54 F.3d 316, 320 (7th Cir. 1995) ("the federal law allowing ‘unexpired’ leases to be assumed calls for a determination whether a lease has ended under state law."). Here, Debtor argues that the lease expired pre-petition, resulting in a holdover tenancy, in which no privity of contract exists, while Berger Foundation argues that the lease became a month to month tenancy and, therefore, was not expired. While the parties appear to be agree on the operative legal standard, the parties disagree regarding how that standard applies to the facts here


      Both parties refer to CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, which states:


      If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

      exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year.


      Chapter 11



      As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it appears the above legal provision should not actually be applicable to the instant situation. Specifically, CAL. CIV. CODE

      § 1940(a), (c) states the following:


      1. Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter shall apply to all persons who hire dwelling units located within this state included tenants, boarders, lodgers, and others, however denominated.


        (c) "Dwelling unit" means a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household.


        Here, the lease at issue was a commercial lease which would remove the lease from the purview of § 1945 based upon the plain language of § 1940. Nevertheless, the Court notes that there is ample caselaw, some of which is cited by the parties, in which California courts have applied § 1945 to commercial property. Although it is not clear to this Court why that section is inapplicable to the instant situation, the Court will defer to the state law courts on this issue of state law.


        Ultimately, the argument of Berger Foundation boils down to the following:


        In this case, after the expiration of the Lease terms (August 14, 2018), Debtor continued to occupy the Premises. Berger continued to accept the Debtor as a tenant and took no action to terminate the Debtor’s leasehold interest in the Premises. To the contrary, as this Court’s record reflects, from the outset, Berger has been focusing on receiving rent payments and, in fact, received post-petition payments of not less than $15,000 as of the date of this Reply.

        Clearly, pursuant to Civil Code § 1945 and applicable California authority, the

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

        Lease converted to a month-to-month tenancy after August 14, 2018.


        Chapter 11



        [Dkt. No. 278, pg. 3]. Debtor’s argument, on the other hand, appears to be that Berger Foundation’s actions in this case simply do not reflect clear consent to Debtor’s continued possession of the premises.


        First, there appears to be a timing issue which has not been identified by the parties. The operative lease expired, by its own terms, on August 14, 2018. The instant bankruptcy was filed on August 15, 2018. Therefore, assuming, arguendo, that rent was paid and accepted in a matter which would trigger the statutory presumption in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, such event would have occurred after the petition date. City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) ("The statute provides the landlord’s consent to the holding over is implied if he accepts rent from the tenant after the expiration of the lease. This consent to the holding over must be established before the statutory presumption of the same terms becomes effective.") (emphasis added). Therefore, the lease at issue would have been, as of the petition date, expired and not assumable. Quite simply, on the record before the Court, it is implausible that Berger Foundation could have undertaken any action in the fraction of the day before the instant bankruptcy filing which would have indicated consent to the creation of a month-to-month tenancy.


        Furthermore, outside of the bankruptcy law issues raised above, Berger Foundation’s position does not seem to be compatible with state law. Quite simply, the presumptions outlined in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 are analogous to contractual principles in common law. By remaining in possession of the property, and tendering a rental payment, a holdover tenant is making an offer; by accepting such tender, the landlord manifests his assent to such offer. Berger Foundation seems to be positing that the payment of any rent whatsoever, even a single dollar, subsequently accepted by the landlord, results in the extension of the lease terms on the original contractual terms.


        Berger Foundation’s argument, however, is inconsistent with fundamental contractual principles, for, in the case of a minimal rental payment, it cannot be said that either party has made an offer, accepted by the other party, to renew the original lease terms. At best, the landlord’s implied acquiescence may be construed as an offer, yet the tenant’s tender of a minimal rental payment can only be interpreted as a counter-offer,

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


        Chapter 11

        since such a tender would be materially inconsistent with the terms of the offer. If the landlord accepts this reduced tender, the terms agreed upon must be construed as those set forth in the counter-offer, a principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076:


        The person to whom a tender is made must, at the time, specify any objection he may have to the money, instrument, or property, or he must be deemed to have waived it; and if the objection be to the amount of money, the terms of the instrument, or the amount or kind of property, he must specify the amount, terms, or kind which he requires, or be precluded from objecting afterwards.


        See also Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940) ("It is now settled by these cases that where the tenant tenders, and the landlord accepts, as full payment of the rent, a less monthly rental than that reserved in the lease, he cannot later recover the unpaid balance of the rent reserved.")


        While the above principle, a principle of estoppel, is properly subject to the Court’s consideration of equities, such consideration would simply not change the fact that a reduced monthly rental payment cannot be considered acquiescence to a renewal of the original contractual terms. In the absence of such mutual agreement to be bound to the original terms, there simply cannot be contractual privity.


        Finally, the Court notes that the operation of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 is to create a rebuttable presumption that the least has been extended. Assuming, arguendo, that the bankruptcy and contract law issues noted above were not present, it appears probable that such a presumption would be rebutted in the instant case. The Court is not aware of any action taken by Debtor that would support a conclusion that Debtor intended to renew the lease on the original terms, and Berger Foundation has made repeated statements which would be incompatible with the presumption in § 1945. For instance, in the instant motion Berger Foundation made the following statements, which are implicitly and explicitly more compatible with a holdover tenancy than a month-to-month tenancy:

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


        Chapter 11

        -"Since the filing of this case, the Debtor has continued, and continues, to occupy the Premises, yet has failed to pay the rental obligation due and owing." [Dkt. No 194, pg. 2 and 4]


        -"Based on the fact that the Debtor remained as a holdover tenant, and pursuant to the terms of the Lease, the rental obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 4 and 10] (emphasis added).


        -"Here, the Debtor has made no payments while continuing to occupy the Premises." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 6].


        For the reasons outlined above, the Court concludes that the lease in question was expired as of the petition date because nothing in the record indicates that Berger Foundation provided consent to continued possession of the premises in the less than one-day period between the expiration of the lease and the instant bankruptcy filing. To the extent that Berger Foundation argues that postpetition acts retroactively revived the original lease terms, such retroactive revival would seem to be incompatible with City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

        Furthermore, because Debtor did not remotely act in accordance with the original lease terms, it cannot be said that Debtor actions constituted a renewal of those terms; if any lease was entered into postpetition, it must have been on substantially different terms, which would require notice and a hearing. Additionally, even if the statutory presumption of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 were applicable in the instant situation, the Court concludes that such presumption would likely be rebutted based on the fact that Debtor did not act in accordance with the original terms, and based on Berger Foundation’s explicit characterization of Debtor as a holdover tenant.


        II. 11 U.S.C. § 503


        11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) states:


      2. After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including –

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


        Chapter 11

        (1)(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate including –


        "An administrative rent claim under this standard is value ‘under an objective worth standard that measures the fair and reasonable value of the lease.’" In re Pac.-Atl.

        Trading Co., 27 F.3d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Dant & Russell, Inc., 853 F.2d 700, 707 (9th Cir. 1988)). "The rent reserved in the lease is presumptive evidence of fair and reasonable value, but the presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating that the reasonable worth of the lease differs from the contract rate." In re Thompson, 788 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1986). "Where the debtor or trustee only uses a portion of the lease property, however, he must pay an administrative expense only for that portion of the property." Id. at 562. The Court continued the previous hearing for the parties to provide evidence and argument regarding the objective value of the portion of the leased property utilized by Debtor.


        Debtor first, very briefly, argues that the parties have implicitly agreed to a rental rate of $5,000 per month, and that that amount should be used in calculating Berger Foundation’s administrative claim. Debtor appears to base this argument on the Court’s tentative ruling for the hearing of December 18, 2018; specifically, Debtor refers to Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940). The Court rejects Debtor’s approach. The relevant language in the Court’s tentative ruling is used to illustrate that, in the context of a holdover tenancy, the original contractual terms do not necessarily control when the parties have acted in a manner which is materially inconsistent with those terms. Importantly, here, the $5,000 payment discussed by Debtor is not necessarily a "rental" payment, but is more accurately characterized as an "adequate protection" payment. Adequate protection payments may be in amounts substantially different than the actual amount due – for instant, an adequate protection payment may be interest only, or may attempt to estimate the depreciation of the estate, in order to protect the secured creditor’s interest.

        Furthermore, it would not be equitable to apply the estoppel principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076 in the context of bankruptcy, where the lender does have the ability to reject the payment and, without constraint, exercise its traditional state law rights.


        Debtor’s primary argument is that the contract rate of the lease is an "inappropriate measure" of the objective worth of the lease because Debtor did not use the entirety of the leased premises. Specifically, Debtor argues that it only utilized 4,000 square feet

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


        Chapter 11

        of the leased premises. Berger Foundation, on the other hand, makes two arguments in response: (1) that the entirety of the premises were necessary for Debtor to maintain its CMS license; and (2) that Debtor actually utilized the majority of the premises. In support of its argument, Debtor has provided declarations attesting that Debtor only used 4,000 square feet, and that, after moving into a smaller space, Debtor did not lose any funding, or, presumably, its license. Berger Foundation has provided a declaration which includes the vague statement that Debtor "continued to utilize the majority of the Premises."


        The record provided to the Court is, unfortunately, unclear and incapable of providing the necessary evidentiary framework for a precise mathematical calculation. First, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether Debtor used only 4,000 square feet.

        Second, and more importantly, the evidence seems to suggest, but is still unclear, that the Debtor required all the space to maintain its license (or at least thought it had to). Debtor’s response states the following: "Although it is true the Debtor was concerned it might lose funding if it lost its physical address in Palm Desert by hastily vacating the Premises, a belief that the Debtor needed a physical address for funding does not trump the Ninth Circuit requirement that the Debtor actually use the entirety of the Premises. In fact, Berger does not cite to any authority for this proposition." [Dkt. No. 323, pg. 10, lines 6-10].


        On the record before it, the Court concludes Debtor has failed to demonstrate it did not use the entirety of the premises. More specifically, the Court concludes that there are a variety of ways that a space can be "used," and that that term is not limited to physical occupancy by the tenant. While, again, the record before the Court is less than clear, it appears that Debtor represented that it had control over, and occupancy of, the entirety of the premises for purposes of its licensing and funding. As a result, it appears Debtor continued to "use" the leased premises for some purposes, even if such use did not necessarily amount to physical use of the entirety of the premises for normal business operations. Because Debtor has not established that the use of the full premises was not reasonably necessary to preserve the estate, the Court rejects Debtor’s attempt to reduce the space used to 4,000 square foot. As a result, the Court concludes that Debtor has not rebutted the presumption that the contract rate represents the reasonable value of the leased premises used.

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


        Chapter 11

        TENTATIVE RULING



        The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of allowing Berger Foundation an administrative claim in the amount of $172,543.53, less amounts received, and DENY the remainder of the motion.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

        David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

        Movant(s):

        The H. N. and Frances C. Berger Represented By

        David B Golubchik

        11:00 AM

        6:18-16908


        Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


        Chapter 11


        #2.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


        From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/13/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19, 3/27/19


        Also #1 EH   

        Docket 4


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

        David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

        11:00 AM

        6:18-20477


        Connie Gutierrez


        Chapter 7


        #3.00 Order to show cause why Keith Nguyen should not be sanctioned in the amount of $5000.00

        (CASE DISMISSED 4/1/19)


        EH   


        Docket 28


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Connie Gutierrez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

        Trustee(s):

        Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

        11:00 AM

        6:19-12755


        Salvador Caridad Rodriguez


        Chapter 13


        #3.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property: 29212 Mesa Crest Way, Menifee, CA 92584


        MOVANT: SALVADOR CARIDAD RODRIGUEZ


        From: 4/30/19 EH   

        Docket 13


        Tentative Ruling:

        4/30/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        The Court, having reviewed the motion, finds the evidence submitted in support of the motion, in the form of a declaration of Debtor, to be lacking the detail and specificity necessary to rebut the statutory presumption that the case is filed in bad faith.

        Specifically, the Court notes that 11 U.S.C. § 363(c)(3)(C) requires that the presumption of bad faith be rebutted by "clean and convincing" evidence; Debtor’s declaration is cursory and devoid of details.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Salvador Caridad Rodriguez Represented By Steven A Alpert

        Movant(s):

        Salvador Caridad Rodriguez Represented By Steven A Alpert

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Salvador Caridad Rodriguez


        Chapter 13

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:13-27611


        Douglas Jay Roger


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


        #4.00 Motion for Partial Judgment on Pleadings re Answer by Bank of Southern California to Second Amended Complaint


        EH   


        Docket 133

        Tentative Ruling:

        5/1/2019

        BACKGROUND

        On October 25, 2013, Douglas Roger ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On May 10, 2016, the Court entered an order approving a settlement between Trustee and Revere Financial Corporation ("Plaintiff"). The settlement included a liquidating trust agreement, pursuant to which Trustee would transfer certain assets to a liquidating trust controlled directly or indirectly by Plaintiff.

        On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff, in its capacity as liquidating trustee, filed a complaint against Bank of Southern California, N.A. ("Defendant"). The complaint included causes of action for: (a) intentional fraudulent transfer (two claims); (b) constructive fraudulent transfer; (c) preferential transfer; (d) unjust enrichment; and (e) money had and received. On August 31, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The morning of the scheduled hearing, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, rendering the motion to dismiss moot. On October 5, 2016, Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss. After one continuance, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend. On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint; on February 28, 2017, Defendant filed a third motion to dismiss. On April 7, 2017, after one continuance, the Court granted the motion to dismiss; the dismissal was with prejudice as to the claims for unjust enrichment and money had

        2:00 PM

        CONT...

        Douglas Jay Roger

        Chapter 7

        and received.


        On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. On August 4, 2017, Defendant filed a fourth motion to dismiss. On September 7, 2017, the Court dismissed the third amended complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice. On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the district court.


        On April 13, 2018, the district court reversed this Court’s orders relating to both the second and third amended complaints, reinstating the second amended complaint as the operative complaint. On July 31, 2018, the Court entered an amended order vacating dismissal of the case and clarifying that the second amended complaint was the operative complaint.


        On July 31, 2018, Defendant also filed an answer. The answer contained the following twenty-three affirmative defenses:


        1. Failure to state a cause of action;


        2. Estoppel


        3. Laches


        4. Waiver


        5. Setoff/Recoupment


        6. Unclean Hands


        7. No Recovery


        8. Failure to Mitigate Damages


        9. Contemporaneous Exchange for New Value 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1)

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Douglas Jay Roger

        10. Ordinary Course 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2)


        11. Value


        12. Limitation of 11 U.S.C. §546


        13. Not Insolvent


        14. The Bank Did Not Receive More Than It Would Have in a Chapter 7


        15. No Liability Under 11 U.S.C. § 550


          (16) New Value 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4)


          1. Not Debtor’s Assets


          2. Justification


          3. Voluntary Payment


          4. Good Faith


          5. Accord and Satisfaction


          6. Earmarking Doctrine


          7. Reservation of Rights and Non-Waiver


            Chapter 7


            [Dkt. No. 96, pages 13-17].


            After a brief discovery dispute between the parties, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (the "Motion") on April 10, 2019, seeking an order striking all the affirmative defenses in the operative answer. The Motion contains two categories of argument. First, Plaintiff argues that eight of the twenty-three affirmative defenses are insufficient as a matter of law. Second, Plaintiff argues that the remaining fifteen affirmative defenses are insufficient as a matter of pleading.

            2:00 PM

            CONT...


            Douglas Jay Roger


            Chapter 7


            On April 17, 2019, Defendant filed its opposition. On April 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed its reply.


            LEGAL DISCUSSIONS



            FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(c) & (f), incorporated into bankruptcy proceeds by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7012(b), state the following:


      3. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.


      1. Motion to Strike. The Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act:


        1. on its own; or


        2. on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.


      There are several potentially applicable definitions of "judgment." For instance, FED.

      R. CIV. P. Rule 54(a) states, in pertinent part: " ‘Judgment’ as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies." FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9001(7) includes an additional definition of judgment. The most specific, and therefore, most appropriate, definition of judgment is contained in FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9002(5), which provides:

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Jay Roger

      The following words and phrases used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure made applicable to cases under the Code by these rules have the meaning indicated unless that are inconsistent with the context:


        1. "Judgment" includes any order appealable to an appellate court.


          Chapter 7



          Here, it is unclear how Plaintiff can request a "judgment," while simultaneously stating that "BSC may amend BSC’s answer to actually allege facts to support BSC’s affirmative defenses in an operative answer." [Dkt. No. 137, pg. 3, lines 24-26].

          Regardless, because leave to amend pleadings is to be granted liberally, and because of the unsettled nature of the law on this issue, the Court would not prohibit Defendant from amending its answer, even if so requested by Plaintiff. See FED. R. CIV.

          P. Rule 15(a)(2), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7015, ("The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires."). As a result, it does not appear that the relief requested by Plaintiff could be construed as a judgment.


          This conclusion is supported by the case law cited by Plaintiff in its argument section, which begins on page 11 of docket number 133. [The Court notes that while this section begins with section (III)(A), docket number 133 contains multiple sections (III), the latter of which contains two subsections (A)]. The Court takes issue with Plaintiff’s fundamental misrepresentation of the caselaw it is citing. There are two sentences in the argument section of docket number 133 which stand for the proposition that a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to affirmative defenses is a proper procedural approach, neither of which are adequately supported by relevant caselaw.


          The first sentence is on lines 12-14 of page 11, and states: "A court will grant a motion for judgment pleadings against a defendant’s affirmative defenses if the affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled." This statement is followed by the following citation: Westport Ins. Corp. v. N. Cal. Relief, 76 F. Supp. 3d 869, 882 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Nyberg v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2016 WL 3176585 at * 2 (D. Or. 2016); see also Pac. W. Grp. v. Real Time Solutions, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 27037, *1-3 (9th Cir. 2008) ("The district court properly granted partial judgment on

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Douglas Jay Roger


          Chapter 7

          the pleadings. "); Savage v. Council on Am.-Islamic Relations, Inc., 2008 WL

          2951281, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Three of these four cases appear irrelevant to the issue before the Court. The district court in Westport Ins. concluded that standard judgment on the pleadings (i.e. judgment on the Plaintiff’s own causes of action) was appropriate in that case notwithstanding the existence of affirmative defenses raised in the answer. The Ninth Circuit in Pac. W. dealt with a defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, yet Plaintiff has decided to arbitrarily include the citation with a quotation that "[t]he district court properly granted partial judgment on the pleadings." Likewise, the district court in Savage dealt with a defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Nyberg does stand for the assertion made by Plaintiff, but the district court in that case engaged in no analysis of the characterization and simply decided to defer to the characterization adopted by the plaintiff.


          The second sentence is at lines 26-27 of page 11, and states: "A court should grant judgment on the pleadings if the answer contains insufficient affirmative defenses." This statement cites Westport and FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(f). Westport does support the quoted sentence, but is not applicable to a motion for judgment as to affirmative defenses. And Plaintiff is not moving under Rule 12(f) so that citation is inapposite.


          Presumably, the reason that Plaintiff has adopted this questionable procedural approach is that a motion under Rule 12(f) is no longer available, absent permission of the Court, because the deadline for that motion has passed. Nevertheless, Plaintiff then shifts to cases applying Rule 12(f) without disclosing the same. In presenting the applicable legal standard, Plaintiff next cites Ross v. White, 2018 WL 3419647 (C.D. Cal. 2018), Ganley v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 2007 WL 902551 (N.D. Cal. 2007), and Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010). All of these cases deal with Rule 12(f) and contain no mention of Rule 12(c). Likewise, CTF Dev., Inc. v. Penta Hosp., LLC, 2009 WL 3517617 (N.D. Cal. 2009), Hayne v. Green Ford Sales, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 647 (D. Kan. 2009), and Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse’s Computers & Repairs, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681 (M.D. Fla.

          2002) all deal with Rule 12(f) motions.


          Given that Plaintiff has filed a Rule 12(c) motion, but declined to support the motion with adequate caselaw, it is somewhat unclear how this Court should proceed. The Court finds the following well-reasoned analysis, from Jou v. Adalian, 2017 WL

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Douglas Jay Roger


          Chapter 7

          3624340 at *2-*4 (D. Hi. 2017) to be particularly helpful:


          The court next addresses whether the Motion is timely. If filed as a motion to strike an "insufficient defense" under Rule 12(f), then it is barred by Rule 12(f)(2), which requires that a Rule 12(f) motion be filed "within 21 days after being served with the pleading." But if filed as a motion for failure "to state a legal defense to a claim under Rule 12(h)(2)(B), then it is timely.


          As a starting point, most courts appear to assume that any motion to strike an affirmative defense must be brought under Rule 12(f).


          But these cases largely ignore Rule 12’s second method of challenging an affirmative defense – Rule 12(h)(2)(B) As stated, this rule permits the filing of a Rule 12(c) motion for failure to state a legal defense to a claim. So, the question becomes how to reconcile Rule 12(f) and Rule 12(h)(2)(B). More specifically, what is the difference between challenging an "insufficient defense" under Rule 12(f) and challenging the failure to state a "legal defense" to a claim under Rule 12(h)(2)(B)? In answering this question, the court follows some general rules of statutory constructions. The court starts, of course, with plain meaning. And an interpretation that gives effect to every clause is generally preferable to one that does not. As a corollary rule, no provision should be construed to be entirely redundant. Thus, a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.


          As an initial matter, the court rejects the view that Rule 12(h)(2)(B) simply allows a Rule 12(f) motion to be filed beyond the deadline set forth in Rule 12(f). This interpretation renders meaningless Rule 12(f)(2)’s requirement that a Rule 12(f) motion be filed within twenty-one days of service of the complaint. And, it fails to recognize the different between an "insufficient" and a "legal" defense.


          The court concludes that the difference between an "insufficient defense" and the failure to "state a legal defense to a claim" is based on the type of challenge being

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Douglas Jay Roger

          made. A claim of an "insufficient defense" covers a broader array of possible challenges than one claiming failure to state a "legal defense." In fact, while every failure to state a "legal defense" would also likely be an "insufficient defense," the reverse isn’t true – some defenses can be insufficient but still state a legal defense. This follows from the definition of "legal defense" as a complete and adequate defense in a court of law. If a defense is not a complete and adequate one, it is not a legal defense. So, for example, if an affirmative defense of laches is not available as


          Chapter 7

          a matter of law in a particular case, then the plaintiff could move under Rule 12(h)(2)

    2. (via Rule 12(c)) for judgment on the pleadings as to that defense. But if a Plaintiff simply claims that an affirmative defense as pled is too conclusory or boilerplate, then that claim does not challenge legal adequacy; instead, it asserts that the defense is insufficient as pled. This reading of Rule 12(f) and 12(h)(2)(B) gives meaning to both provisions and avoids finding any provision superfluous.


Here, Plaintiff simply claims that the majority of affirmative defenses are boilerplate and conclusory – i.e., they are insufficient as pled. The court thus construes the Motion as being brought pursuant to Rule 12(f). And because it was filed many months late, it is untimely.


[Citations, quotations, and footnotes omitted]. The Court also notes that the thorough analysis provided by the district court in Jou also resolves this Court’s earlier-stated concerns about the definition of "judgment"; if an affirmative defenses is truly unavailable as a matter of law, then there would be no reason to permit leave to amend.


Therefore, in line with the reasoning outlined above, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion with respects to the fifteen affirmatives defenses that Plaintiff contends were inadequately pled. The proper remedy for Plaintiff was to file a Rule 12(f) motion, which, at present, would be untimely. Without needing to decide the issue, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s contention, in the reply, that this Court has already

decided that the heightened pleading standards apply to affirmative defenses, is simply inaccurate. The attached tentative ruling is simply not relevant to a Rule 12(f) analysis.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

The Court will, however, consider whether the remaining eight affirmative defenses are unavailable as a matter of law. Those eight defenses are: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) no recovery; (3) not insolvent; (4) the bank did not receive more than it would have in a Chapter 7; (5) non debtor’s assets; (6) accord and satisfaction; (7) earmarking doctrine; and (8) reservation of rights and non-waiver.


The Court agrees with Plaintiff that "reservation of rights and non-waiver" is not a legal, affirmative defense, and is properly stricken as a matter of law. See, e.g., A.K.C.

v. City of Santa Ana, 2010 WL 11469021 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2010). The Court further agrees with Plaintiff, for the reasons set forth in the Motion, that the first, seventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, seventeenth, and twenty-first affirmative defenses simply negate an element of the claims that Plaintiff is already required to provide. As a result, these six affirmative defenses are not properly characterized as affirmative defenses because Plaintiff is already required to prove the opposite. See, e.g., Zivkovic

  1. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) ("A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense."). Finally, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff regarding the remaining affirmative defense, accord and satisfaction. While accord and satisfaction may not be a valid affirmative defense to a claim for fraudulent transfer, the second amended complaint also contains claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received. While it is not clear what facts Defendant could allege in support of an affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction, the Court, restricting its analysis to the legal adequacy of the affirmative defenses, cannot conclude that accord and satisfaction is an improper legal defense to the second amended complaint as a whole.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion IN PART, striking the First, Seventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Seventeenth, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Third affirmative defenses, with prejudice, and DENY the remainder of the Motion without prejudice.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Debtor(s):


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7

    Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

    Defendant(s):

    Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

    Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

    Movant(s):

    Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

    Plaintiff(s):

    Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

    Franklin R Fraley Jr

    2:00 PM

    6:17-17749


    Joshua Cord Richardson


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01146 Sonnenfeld v. Richardson


    #5.00 Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues


    Also #6 EH   

    Docket 18

    Tentative Ruling:

    5/1/2019

    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


    On September 15, 2017, Cleo Sonnenfeld, as Trustee of the Sonnenfeld Family Trust ("Plaintiff") filed an involuntary petition against Joshua Richardson, his nephew ("Defendant"). On November 6, 2017, Defendant stipulated to the entry of an order for relief, and the order for relief was entered two days later.


    On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant to determine dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) and (a)(6), and to deny discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (5). On July 30, 2018, Defendant filed his answer. After the parties stipulated to a continuance of the scheduling order, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), adding a claim under § 727(a)(4), on January 13, 2019.


    After a second stipulation to amend the scheduling order, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment on March 18, 2019. On April 9, 2019, Defendant filed

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Joshua Cord Richardson


    Chapter 7

    its opposition (as well as an amended answer). The Court notes that Defendant’s opposition does not contain a single citation to bankruptcy law and only purports to controvert nine of Plaintiff’s sixty-six statements of fact. On April 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply


    FACTUAL BACKGROUND



    In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in 2012, Defendant fraudulent induced Plaintiff to loan Defendant funds totaling $225,000. Plaintiff asserts that the purpose of this loan was to enable Defendant to purchase certain real property located at 13710 Oakley Dr., Moreno Valley, CA (the "Property"), and further asserts that the loan was intended to be secured by a first priority deed of trust. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant never provided Plaintiff with a deed of trust, while subsequently recording deeds of trust, totaling $265,000, in favor of other entities; Plaintiff further contends that Defendant stopped paying the loan in April 2015.


    By way of background, on January 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a state court complaint against Defendant for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and declaratory relief. On February 6, 2018, this lawsuit was removed to the bankruptcy court; the Chapter 7 Trustee ultimately substituted in as the defendant after removal. After multiple hearings, the Court ultimately approved a compromise between Plaintiff and the Chapter 7 Trustee [Dkt No. 69]. The compromise provided that Plaintiff would receive a money judgment in the amount of $318,778.12 and a judgment holding that the estate was holding the Property in constructive trust for Plaintiff; a judgment to that effect was entered by the Court.


    Also relevant to this proceeding is Plaintiff’s detailed contentions that Defendant materially misrepresented certain financial information in his case commencement documents and at the meeting of creditors, and that Defendant professed a lack of information regarding certain other significant financial details. These contentions are concisely detailed in Plaintiff’s statement of proposed findings of fact [Dkt. No. 19].

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Joshua Cord Richardson


    Chapter 7

    LEGAL STANDARD


    Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 56(a) (incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7056).


    The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bell v. Cameron Meadows Land Co., 669 F.2d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1982). All reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. Hector v. Wiens, 533 F.2d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1976).


    If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. However, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material fact…." Matsushita Electrical Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986).


    A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.


    LEGAL ANALYSIS


    11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3)-(5) state:


    1. The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless ---

      1. the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor’s financial condition or business

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Joshua Cord Richardson

        transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case;

      2. the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case ---


        Chapter 7

        1. made a false oath or account;

        2. presented or used a false claim;

        3. gave, offered, received, or attempted to obtain money, property, or advantage, or a promise of money, property, or advantage, for acting or forbearing to act; or

        4. withheld from an officer of the estate entitled to possession under this title, any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to the debtor’s property or financial affairs;

      3. the debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before determination of denial of discharge under this paragraph, any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor’s liabilities


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4005 places the burden of proof on the Plaintiff for all claims in this complaint.


A. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5)


The Court begins its analysis with § 727(a)(5). Under § 727(a)(5), the Plaintiff is first required to make a showing of the required elements. In re Retz, 606 F.3d 1189, 1205 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Once the creditor has made a prima facie case [under § 727(a)(5)], the debtor must offer credible evidence regarding the disposition of the missing assets."). Specifically, "[t]he objecting party must demonstrate: (1) debtor at one time, not too remote from the bankruptcy petition date, owned identifiable assets; (2) debtor no longer owned the assets on the petition date; and (3) the bankruptcy pleadings or statement of affairs do not reflect an adequate explanation for the disposition of the assets." In re Poole, 2017 WL 3598050 at *6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2017).


Regarding the first element, Plaintiff has established that Defendant took a $65,000 loan from Val-Christ Investments, Inc. around December 21, 2015, and, additionally, took a $200,000 loan from the Samir and Mona Sanghani Living Trust 2014 around September 15, 2016. [Dkt No. 18, Exhibits 12 and 13]. This is certainly sufficient to establish "identifiable assets." While neither party has provided case law providing guidance on the appropriate look-back period, the Court notes that the case law seems

2:00 PM

CONT...


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

to support a two-year period, at a minimum, with a longer period when warranted by the facts. See, e.g., In re Self, 325 B.R. 224, 250 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005) ("A focus on the two years prior to the bankruptcy filing is common. Inquiries beyond the two-year period may be warranted.") (citations omitted) (collecting cases). The Court notes that both of the loans at issue occurred within two years prior to the entry of the order for relief, and the Court finds that these transactions were not too remote to be excepted from § 727(a)(5).


Regarding the second and third elements, the schedules filed by Defendant demonstrate that Defendant is no longer in possession of the loan proceeds. Furthermore, Plaintiff has established that, despite several requests, Plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence or clear, consistent account of what happened to the $265,000 received. [Dkt. No 19, pg. 7-10]. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has made prima facie showing under § 727(a)(5).


Defendant’s opposition contains no objection or argumentation to refute the statements offered by Plaintiff. "A debtor’s failure to offer a satisfactory explanation when called on by the court is a sufficient ground for denial of discharge under § 727(a)(5)." In re Devers, 759 F.2d 751, 754 (9th Cir. 1985). Because Plaintiff has made a prima facie case under § 727(a)(5), and Defendant has failed to offer any admissible evidence to rebut any of the elements of the Claim, the Court is inclined to GRANT summary judgment, DENYING Defendant’s discharge pursuant to § 727(a) (5).


B. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3)-(4)


Because the Court is inclined to deny Defendant a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 725(a)(5), the Court will only briefly address the claims pursuant to § 727(a)(3)-(4).

Regarding 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3), the Court notes that Plaintiff has provided little case law related to this subsection. The only case cited by Plaintiff, In re Caneva, 550 F.3d 755 (9th Cir. 2008), related to a debtor who "owned or controlled numerous business entities, recreational vehicles and mobile home parks in Florida, and an airplane." The facts of the case in In re Caneva were substantially different than the facts in this case.


While § 727(a)(3) is not expressly limited to non-consumer debtors, the Court questions its application to consumer debtors. See 6 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 727.03[3][b], [g] (16th ed. 2018) ("There are cases in which no duty to keep books

2:00 PM

CONT...


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

arises; in general consumer debtors have no obligation to keep books. Few

consumer debtors maintain anything more than, at most, a collection of bills, receipts and canceled checks, and, absent a sudden and large dissipation of assets, a discharge should not be denied in a typical consumer bankruptcy case due to a lack of books or records."). This is especially true because the lack of records is primarily relevant because of the obstruction of the investigation of the use of the loan proceeds. Section 727(a)(5), however, provides an independent, more factually appropriate basis to deny discharge in these circumstances.


Ultimately, the Court deems it inappropriate to conclude that the Defendant "failed to maintain and preserve adequate records" given: (a) the excerpts from COLLIER’S; (b) the caselaw’s focus on sophisticated business debtors or individuals with complicated financial situations; and (c) the Court’s knowledge that many consumer debtors do not have thorough records. To the extent that a typical consumer debtor has been dissipating assets or has been uncooperative with the Trustee’s, or a creditor’s, investigation, there are more appropriate avenues than § 727(a)(3) to redress that issue.


Regarding 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4), Plaintiff relies on § 724(a)(4)(A) and (D). The Court notes that the elements of a claim under § 727(a)(4)(A) are: "(1) the debtor made a false oath in connection with the case; (2) the oath related to a material fact; (3) the oath was made knowingly; and (4) the oath was made fraudulently." In re Roberts, 331 B.R. 876, 882 (B.A.P. 9th Cir 2005). Paragraphs 49 through 57 of Plaintiff’s statement of proposed facts establish several instances of false statements made by Defendant. These statements relate to material facts given that the subject of the statement is assets or financial transactions of the Defendant of, in some instances, relatively significant value.


Nevertheless, the evidence is unclear regarding the third and, more importantly, the fourth element of a § 727(a)(4)(A) claim. A false oath is made fraudulently if the Defendant made the oath knowing it was false and with the intent and purpose of deceiving creditors. See, e.g., In re Murtaza, 2018 WL 1599755 at *4 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2018). Here, the motion for summary judgment and the accompanying statement of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law do not contain any direct evidence or argument concerning Defendant’s state of mind or intent. Certainly, the Court could analyze whether the pattern of conduct is sufficient to permit an inference that Defendant acted fraudulently. Nevertheless, given the current evidentiary record, and noting that the Court is inclined to deny discharge pursuant to § 727(a)(5), the Court does not intend to engage in such analysis.

C. 11 U.S.C. § 523

2:00 PM

CONT...


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7


The adversary complaint also contains three causes of action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §

523. While these causes of action are of reduced importance if Defendant’s discharge is denied, the Court is aware that a non-dischargeability judgment under § 523 may be res judicata in a future bankruptcy filing, while a judgment under § 727 may not be res judicata. Therefore, the Court will quickly analyze the § 523 claims.


Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the § 523 claims depends upon the use of res judicata and the stipulated judgment obtained in adversary case 6:18-ap-01035- MH. The Court rejects the use of res judicata in this situation on the basis that Defendant was not a party to adversary proceeding 6:18-ap-01035-MH and Defendant was not in privity with the Chapter 7 Trustee.


The Court is aware that Plaintiff argues, in footnote 16 of the motion for summary judgment, that Defendant was in privity with the Chapter 7 Trustee. In support of this contention, Plaintiff cites In re Andrews, 2014 WL 2547808 at *8 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

2014), which stated: "a bankruptcy trustee stands in privity with a debtor for purposes of preclusion in cases involving a debtor’s property rights." The holding in In re Andrews is logical because a Chapter 7 Trustee, as representative of the bankruptcy estate, is incentivized to maximize the estate’s property interests (which would be the Defendant’s property interests in the absence of a bankruptcy); therefore, the Chapter 7 Trustee’s interests are aligned with the Debtor. That alignment of interests, however, is not present when the Chapter 7 Trustee stipulates to a judgment intended to delineate property rights, and a creditor then attempts to use that judgment to secure a judgment of non-dischargeability. While Trustee had motive to maximize Defendant’s, and minimize Plaintiff’s, interest in the Property, Trustee had no motive to shield Defendant from a non-dischargeability judgment.


In the absence of aligned interests between Trustee and Defendant with regard to this non-dischargeability complaint, the requirements for privity are not met. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 893-95 (2008) (outlining the six categories of privity).

Because it appears that, on the current record, summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 523 claims require the use of res judicata, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion with respect to the § 523 claims.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion for summary judgment on the sixth claim for relief, DENYING Defendant a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5). The

2:00 PM

CONT...


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

Court is inclined to DENY the remainder of the motion without prejudice.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Defendant(s):

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Movant(s):

Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

Plaintiff(s):

Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

2:00 PM

6:17-17749


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01146 Sonnenfeld v. Richardson


#6.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01146. Complaint by Cleo Sonnenfeld against Joshua Cord Richardson. (A)(4), and (A)(6); and to Deny Discharge Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 727(A)(3), and (A)(5) (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(66 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims)) (Masud, Laila)


From: 8/29/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19, 3/27/19 Also #5

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Defendant(s):

Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

Plaintiff(s):

Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By

D Edward Hays Laila Masud

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Joshua Cord Richardson


Chapter 7

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

10:00 AM

6:16-20874


Irma Hernandez


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14352 La Brisa Road, Victorville, California 92392


MOVANT: U.S. BANK N.A.


From: 3/26/19 EH   

Docket 48

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/6/19

Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Irma Hernandez Represented By David T Egli

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank N.A., as trustee, on behalf Represented By

Robert P Zahradka

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-14312


John C. Macias


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13411 Golden Sand Ave., Victorville, CA 92392


MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK, A FEDERALLY CHARTERED SAVINGS ASSOCIATION


From: 4/16/19 EH   

Docket 33

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/6/19

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

4/16/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

John C. Macias Represented By Raymond Obiamalu

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


John C. Macias


Chapter 13

MidFirst Bank Represented By Josephine E Salmon Darlene C Vigil Gilbert R Yabes

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-10732


Calvin S. Winn and Diana M. Winn


Chapter 13


#3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13300 February Dr, Corona, CA 92879


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


EH   


Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

5/7/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Movant to apprise Court of status of arrears.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Calvin S. Winn Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Diana M. Winn Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Nancy L Lee

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Calvin S. Winn and Diana M. Winn


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-12231


Brian Howell and Faythe Howell


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 7238 Townsend Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739


MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 36

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Brian Howell Represented By

Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Faythe Howell Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL Represented By

Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-12822


Cynthia Miller


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15036 Daffodil Circle, Fontana, CA 92336


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


From: 3/26/19, 4/16/19 EH   

Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Late


Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions, if any.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cynthia Miller Represented By Richard L Barrett

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16237


Miguel Santa Maria and Lilia Maldonado


Chapter 13


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15848 Rough Rider Place, Victorville, California 92394


MOVANT: METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


EH   


Docket 45

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/1/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Miguel Santa Maria Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Lilia Maldonado Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Metropolitan Life Insurance Represented By Robert P Zahradka Megan E Lees

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20639


Robert A Price


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Insurance proceeds


MOVANT: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

5/7/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Non-Opposition


Based upon the non-opposition filed by Debtor [Dkt. No. 30], and noting that Movant is not attempting to collect from property of Debtor or of the estate, and therefore relief from stay will not impact the administration of the bankruptcy estate, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 8.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert A Price Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Credit Acceptance Corporation Represented By Jennifer H Wang

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Robert A Price


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10974


Ardella Calhoun


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6273 Gamay Court, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91737


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

5/7/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ardella Calhoun Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Movant(s):

Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Megan E Lees

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11122


Martin Ontiveros


Chapter 13


#9.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 16 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 39628 Garin Drive, Murrieta, CA 92562


MOVANT: MARTIN ONTIVEROS


EH   


Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

Counsel Allan Cate is required to personally appear.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

Movant(s):

Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12180


Gerald B Block and Aleane B Block


Chapter 7


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: N 2006 BEAVER PACIFICA; VIN NO. 1RFC9564261040084


MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA N.A.


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

5/7/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gerald B Block Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Joint Debtor(s):

Aleane B Block Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Movant(s):

Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Megan E Lees

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Gerald B Block and Aleane B Block


Chapter 7

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12236


Jose Luis Aguirre Puga and Teresa Franco


Chapter 7


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 Toyota Tundra, VIN 5TFRM5F12CX040732


MOVANT: PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 18


Tentative Ruling:

5/7/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Luis Aguirre Puga Represented By Steven A Alpert

Joint Debtor(s):

Teresa Franco Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jose Luis Aguirre Puga and Teresa Franco

Yuri Voronin


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12402


Paul Sheldon Kirkwood


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 37244 Fallsgrove Murrieta, CA 92563; 2015 Ford F350 Super Duty Lariat 4WD SRW; 2012 Freightliner Cascadeas; 2015 Polaris Razor; 2005 Thor Wanderer 5th Wheel Trailer; 2011 Kia Rio Sedan LX .


MOVANT: PAUL SHELDON KIRKWOOD


From: 4/16/19 EH   

Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

4/16/2019


Service: Improper Opposition: None.


Debtor’s motion was improperly served under Judge Houle’s self-calendaring rule III.D, which requires 14 days’ notice through service on all interested parties, including creditors and their counsel, pursuant to FRBP 7004. FRBP 7004 requires service by certified mail on a party’s officer or general agent for service of process. Debtor appears to have done so on all parties, except for Polaris Consumer Finance and Citizen’s Bank, North America. Debtor failed to direct service to those parties’ agent for service of process, and, in the case of Polaris, the location given is now closed.


As to the merits, the Court finds that Debtor has present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that this case was not filed in good faith and is inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion for an imposition of the automatic stay.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

10:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Paul Sheldon Kirkwood


Chapter 13

Paul Sheldon Kirkwood Represented By Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

Paul Sheldon Kirkwood Represented By Michael E Clark

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12923


Charles Cuevas and Paula Cuevas


Chapter 13


#13.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property Located at 6812 Angelina Street, Chino, CA 91710


MOVANT: CHARLES CUEVAS AND PAULA CUEVAS


EH   


Docket 14

Tentative Ruling: 5/7/2019

Service: Improper Opposition: None


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(aa), this case was presumptively filed in bad faith because Debtors had a previous case dismissed in the last year after failing to file the required case commencement documents. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C) requires that Debtors rebut this presumption with "clear and convincing" evidence. Here, Debtors have failed to file any separate declaration or otherwise provide any clear or substantiated evidence explaining the reasons that the prior case was dismissed.

Moreover, the motion is not served on Wells Fargo in accordance with FED. R. BANKR.

P. Rule 7004, as required by Judge Houle’s self-calendaring procedures. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Cuevas Represented By Anerio V Altman

Joint Debtor(s):

Paula Cuevas Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Movant(s):


Charles Cuevas and Paula Cuevas


Anerio V Altman


Chapter 13

Charles Cuevas Represented By Anerio V Altman

Paula Cuevas Represented By

Anerio V Altman

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12936


Oscar Ricardo Chavez


Chapter 13


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4944 Lindley Avenue, Encino, CA 91316


MOVANT: PARK AVENUE INVESTMENT CAPITAL LLC


CASE DISMISSED 4/26/19


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

5/7/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

  1. based on an unauthorized, unrecorded alleged transfer of a fractionalized interest in the subject real property three days prior to the petition date, and based on Debtor’s failure to file the balance of the case commencement documents. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 10, and 12. Noting that the instant case was dismissed on April 26, 2019, the Court is inclined to GRANT ¶ 4, confirming that there is no automatic stay in effect pursuant to § 362(c)(2)(B), and DENY requests for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1) and (2) and § 1301(a) (¶ 6), and request under ¶ 13 as moot. The Court is inclined to DENY request for relief under ¶¶ 8 and 11 for lack of cause shown.


    In relation to Movant’s request that the automatic stay be annulled retroactive to the petition date, the Court considers the Fjeldsted factors. The BAP, in In re Fjeldsted, noted the absence of a clear standard for annulment of the automatic stay. 293 B.R. 12, 21 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) ("There is less appellate clarity, however, in enunciating a test for retroactive stay relief. Inconsistent standards have thus developed, which run the gamut from such relief being justified only in ‘extreme circumstances’ to giving

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Oscar Ricardo Chavez


    Chapter 13

    the court ‘wide latitude’ to ‘balance the equities’ on a case-by-case basis."). A recent description of the standard for annulment of the automatic stay stated the following:


    Determining whether cause exists to annul the stay is a case-by-case inquiry based on a balance of the equities. In conducting this inquiry the bankruptcy court, among other factors, should consider whether the creditor knew of the bankruptcy when violating the stay and whether the debtor’s conduct was unreasonable, inequitable or prejudicial to the creditor.


    In Fjeldsted, we approved additional factors for consideration in assessing the equities. The twelve nonexclusive factors are: (1) number of filings; (2) whether, in a repeat filing case, the circumstances indicate an intention to delay and hinder creditors; (3) a weighing of the extent of prejudice to creditors or third parties if the stay relief is not made retroactive, including whether harm exists to a bona fide purchaser; (4) the debtor’s overall good faith (totality of circumstances test); (5) whether creditors knew of stay but nonetheless took action, thus compounding the problem; (6) whether the debtor has complied, and is otherwise complying, with the Bankruptcy Code and Rules; (7) the relative ease of restoring parties to the status quo ante; (8) the costs of annulment to debtors and creditors; (9) how quickly creditors moved for annulment, or how quickly debtor moved to set aside the sale or violative conduct; (10) whether, after learning of the bankruptcy, creditors proceeded to take steps in continued violation of the stay, or whether they moved expeditiously to gain relief; (11) whether annulment of the stay will cause irreparable injury to the debtor; and (12) whether stay relief will promote judicial economy or other efficiencies. The Panel in Fjeldsted cautioned that the twelve factors are merely a framework for analysis and not a scorecard, and that in any given case, one factor may so outweigh the others as to be dispositive.


    In re Estavan Capital LLC, 2015 WL 7758494 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted).

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Oscar Ricardo Chavez


    Chapter 13


    While Fjeldsted cautioned that the enumerated factors are not a scorecard, the Fjeldsted factors weigh in favor of annulling the stay here. Specifically, as is noted by Creditor, Debtor filed a skeletal, pro se, Chapter 13 bankruptcy the day befre the completion of the foreclosure sale, and, subsequently, made no effort to comply with the duties of a debtor in bankruptcy. Additionally, four days before the scheduled foreclosure, Garegin Hovhannisyan, who did not even appear to be the legal owner of the subject real property at the time, purportedly transferred a 5% interest in the real property to Debtor, although the grant deed was never recorded. Finally, the Court has received a declaration from Movant that generally declares Movant lacked knowledge of the instant bankruptcy proceeding. Because the transfer and subsequent bankruptcy filing were clearly a fraudulent scheme intended to delay or defraud creditors, because Debtor made no effort to comply with his duties under the Bankruptcy Code, and because there is no evidence that Movant was aware of the automatic stay, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, ANNULLING the automatic stay retroactive to the petition date.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Oscar Ricardo Chavez Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Park Avenue Investment Capital, Represented By

    Yevgeniya Lisitsa

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13123


    Susana Olga Corona


    Chapter 13


    #15.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


    MOVANT: SUSANA O. CORONA


    EH   


    Docket 11

    Tentative Ruling: 5/7/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) creates a rebuttable presumption that this case was filed in bad faith because Debtor failed to perform the terms of her previously confirmed plan. Section 362(c)(3)(C) requires that Debtor submit "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut this presumption. Here, Debtor has only provided general evidence that she experienced a significant and temporary decrease in income, and increase in expenses, without include the supporting details necessary to clearly and convincingly rebut the presumption of bad faith. Therefore, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing to May 9, 2019, for Debtor to file a supplemental declaration.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Movant(s):

    Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Susana Olga Corona


    Christopher J Langley


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13146


    Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


    Chapter 13


    #16.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real & Personal Property


    MOVANT: MARK G. SWARTZ AND ELIZABETH M. SWARTZ


    EH   


    Docket 10

    Tentative Ruling: 5/7/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    The Court having reviewed the motion, good cause appearing and notice being proper, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to all creditors.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber

    Movant(s):

    Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


    Chapter 13

    Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Joseph A Weber

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:18-16908


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    #17.00 Motion to Reject Lease or Executory Contract Motion of the Debtor and Debtor- in-Possession for an Order Authorizing the Debtor to Reject an Insurance Contract with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365


    EH   


    Docket 356

    Tentative Ruling:

    5/7/2019

    BACKGROUND


    On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor has yet filed a disclosure statement or Chapter 11 plan; the exclusivity period has been extended to June 11, 2019.


    On April 15, 2019, Debtor filed a motion for authorization to reject an insurance contract (the "Policy") with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. There has been no opposition to the motion.


    DISCUSSION



    11 U.S.C. § 365(a) states:

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11

    Except as provided in sections 765 and 766 of this title and in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section, the trustee, subject to the court’s approval, may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor.


    Pursuant to § 1107(a), a debtor in possession has the same rights as a trustee, and, therefore, can exercise a trustee’s right to reject an executory contract or unexpired lease. When analyzing a motion to reject an executory contract or unexpired lease, the Court applies the business judgment rule. See, e.g., In re Pomona Valley Med. Group, Inc., 476 F.3d 665, 670 (9th Cir. 2007) ("In making its determination, a bankruptcy court need engage in only a cursory review of debtor-in-possession’s decision to reject the contract. Specifically, a bankruptcy court applies the business judgment rule to evaluate a debtor-in-possession’s rejecting decision . . .") (quotation omitted).


    Here, Debtor asserts that it has additional insurance coverage through Guardian, and that, as a result, the Policy is duplicative and constitutes an unnecessary expense.

    Based upon that evidence, the Court finds that rejection of the Policy is within the sound discretion of Debtor’s business judgment.


    Noting the lack of any opposition, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h), and good cause appearing,


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, authorizing Debtor to reject the MetLife Policy.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


    Party Information

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Debtor(s):


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

    Movant(s):

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20003


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11


    #18.00 CONT Motion for Relief from Stay Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. Section 362 (with supporting declarations) (Real Property)


    MOVANT: LOAN FUNDER LLC, SERIES 1829


    From: 2/26/19, 3/5/19, 4/10/19 Also #19 & #20

    EH   


    Docket 52


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    Movant(s):

    Loan Funder LLC, Series 1829 Represented By Jeffrey N Brown

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20003


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11


    #19.00 CONT Motion to Approve Compromise Under Rule 9019 From: 4/10/19

    Also #18 & #20 EH   

    Docket 70

    Tentative Ruling:

    4/10/2019

    BACKGROUND:


    On November 27, 2018, LC Stahl LLC ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On December 6, 2018, Debtor’s case was dismissed for failure to file case commencement documents. On December 11, 2018, the dismissal order was vacated.


    On December 17, 2018, the Court approved the application of Lauren Newman to appear pro hace vice on behalf of Loan Funder, LLC Series 1829 ("Creditor"). On February 27, 2019, the Court approved the application of Stuart Wald to serve as bankruptcy counsel for Debtor.


    Among the claims filed in the case is a secured claim in the amount of $55,424.11 ("Claim 3") filed by Aashish Bhatia ("Bhatia"). On March 5, 2019, Debtor field a motion to approve compromise with Bhatia. The settlement provides that Luis Stahl,

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11

    the manager and sole member of Debtor, will pay Bhatia $30,500, and that Bhatia will retain a secured claim of $16,000, due in one year and accruing at 10% interest, with payments of at least $500 due monthly.


    On March 27, 2019, Creditor filed an objection to the compromise motion. Specifically, Creditor objects to that portion of the compromise which provides for pre-confirmation payments to be made to Bhatia.


    ANALYSIS:


    FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


    On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11

    The A&C Properties elements have limited direct applicability when the proposed compromise is a compromise relating to the treatment of a claim. In this situation, Bhatia is receiving a significant payment immediately from Debtor’s principal, as well as pre-confirmation adequate protection, paid by the principal, and the bankruptcy estate is substantially decreasing its liability on Claim 3. Clearly, the compromise is in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate. In particular, and as set for the in Debtor’s supplement, the A&C Properties elements have been satisfied.


    Creditor, however, implicitly argues that, as the senior secured creditor, it should receive adequate protection payments prior to Bhatia. It does not appear that Creditor has requested adequate protection payments at any point in this case. The Court specifically notes that Creditor declined to request adequate protection payments when it brought a motion for relief from the automatic stay.


    In the absence of a properly filed request for adequate protection, the Court is reluctant to deny the compromise motion on the basis that Creditor has not yet been offered or received adequate protection payments. The A&C Properties test having been satisfied, and because it does not appear that the compromise motion would impair the rights of Creditor, or otherwise cause legal prejudice to Creditor, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, APPROVING the compromise as fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    Movant(s):

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20003


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11


    #20.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 1/8/19, 2/26/19, 3/5/19, 4/10/19 Also #18 & #19

    EH       


    Docket 8


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #21.00 Application for Compensation for Nicholas W Gebelt, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 11/22/2018 to 4/3/2019, Fee: $13,685.00, Expenses: $843.91


    Also #22 - #24


    EH   


    Docket 130


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #22.00 CONT Application for Compensation for Nicholas W Gebelt, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/26/2018 to 11/21/2018, Fee: $31,465.00, Expenses: $673.89. (Previously awarded $14,700.70 in Fees on 4/17/19)


    From: 1/8/19, 1/29/19, 3/26/19, 4/16/19 Also #21 - #24

    EH   


    Docket 95


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #23.00 Motion for approval of chapter 11 disclosure statement Also #21 - #24

    EH   


    Docket 127


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #24.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 3/20/18, 8/21/18, 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 2/5/19 Also #21 - #23

    EH   


    Docket 16


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #25.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 37 by Claimant Franchise Tax Board Also #26 & #27

    EH   


    Docket 248

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/25/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    Movant(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan


    Also #25 & #27 EH   

    Docket 197


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #27.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 11/6/18, 12/18/18, 1/29/19, 3/5/19 Also #25 & #26

    EH   


    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    3:00 PM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #28.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 10 by Claimant Pacific Steel Group


    From: 4/30/19 EH   

    Docket 228


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10057


    Alvaro Xavier Fierro


    Chapter 7


    #1.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Ally Bank re 2016 Toyota Tundra


    EH   


    Docket 19


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Alvaro Xavier Fierro Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10081


    Alexis Caseiah Croom


    Chapter 7


    #2.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Arrowhead Credit Union re 2016 BMW X5


    EH   


    Docket 17


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Alexis Caseiah Croom Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10602


    Paul J. Foster


    Chapter 7


    #3.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union re 2007 Mercedes-Benz M Class


    EH   


    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Paul J. Foster Represented By

    James D. Hornbuckle

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:13-27611


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7


    #4.00 CONT Objection to Claim #17 by Revere Financial Corporation

    (Holding date)


    From: 10/1/14, 11/5/14, 12/3/14, 12/15/14, 1/28/15, 4/15/15, 7/22/15, 9/23/15, 10/21/15, 11/18/15, 12/16/15, 1/13/16, 3/2/16, 5/4/16, 6/1/16, 9/28/16, 11/16/16,

    2/1/17, 2/16/17, 5/3/17, 6/14/17, 6/28/17, 9/20/17, 3/21/18, 6/27/18, 12/19/18,

    3/27/19


    EH      


    Docket 333

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

    Franklin R Fraley Jr

    11:00 AM

    6:19-11445


    Merry Luisa Miravet Irby


    Chapter 7


    #5.00 Motion to vacate dismissal and reinstate chapter 7 case EH   

    Docket 12


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Merry Luisa Miravet Irby Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Merry Luisa Miravet Irby Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-14532


    William J Colvin and Becky L Colvin


    Chapter 7


    #6.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 62


    Tentative Ruling:


    The lack of objection to Trustee’s Final Report and Application for Compensation will be interpreted as consent under LBR 9013-1(f)(3).


    11 U.S.C. § 326(a) states that the Court may allow reasonable compensation of the Chapter 7 Trustee. The maximum limit of reasonable compensation is defined as a factor of the moneys disbursed or turned over in the case by the trustee to the parties in interest, excluding the debtor, but including secured creditors. Id. This percentage is not to exceed 25% of the first $5,000, 10% of any amount in between $5,000 and

    $50,000, 5% of any amount between $50,000 and $1,000,000, and not more than 3% for any amount over $1,000,000. These statutory maximums are to serve as caps on fees, and the Court must still review the application for fees to determine whether the request is reasonable.

    Here, Trustee has properly calculated their fees according to the percentages provided by § 326(a). Upon review of Trustee’s services, the Court finds that the statutory maximum is a reasonable request in this matter. The Court has also reviewed Trustee’s accounting of their expenses and finds them reasonable.


    The Court has reviewed Counsel for Trustee’s application for compensation, and the agreed upon stipulation entered by Trustee and the United States Trustee, and finds that the reduced amount for compensation agreed upon within the stipulation for the compensation of Counsel for Trustee is generally reasonable for the services for provided.


    The Court has also reviewed Trustee’s application for compensation for the Trustee’s services as accountant for the estate, and finds that the amount stipulated upon by Trustee and the United States trustee for the compensation of Trustee acting in the role of account for the estate is also generally reasonable for the services provided.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    William J Colvin and Becky L Colvin


    Chapter 7

    TENTATIVE RULING


    Date: 5/8/2019 Opposition: None Service: Proper


    The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Trustee acting in the role of Accountant for the Estate, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 4,750 Trustee Expenses: $ 10,43


    Attorney Fees: $ 10,280 Attorney Costs: $ 138.23


    Accountant Fees: $ 2,237.50 Accountant Costs: $ 482.45


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    William J Colvin Represented By Ronald L Brownson

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Becky L Colvin Represented By Ronald L Brownson

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Lovee D Sarenas

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    William J Colvin and Becky L Colvin


    Chapter 7

    11:00 AM

    6:16-19947


    Melissa Lynn Dixson


    Chapter 7


    #7.00 CONT Show Cause Hearing RE: [13] Motion For Contempt Violation Discharge Order


    From: 1/9/19, 2/27/19, 3/27/19, 4/24/19 EH   

    Docket 13

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 5/14/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

    Bryant C MacDonald

    Movant(s):

    Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

    Bryant C MacDonald

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:08-14592


    Empire Land, LLC


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:09-01235 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


    #8.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

    HOLDING DATE


    From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

    1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

    12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

    10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

    11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/19,

    3/27/19


    EH      


    Docket 1

    Tentative Ruling:

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

    ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

    Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

    Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

    Defendant(s):

    Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Empire Land, LLC


    David Loughnot Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


    Chapter 7

    DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    RICHARD K. DIAMOND Represented By

    Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

    Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

    John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

    Trustee(s):

    Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

    Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

    Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

    Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

    Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

    2:00 PM

    6:08-14592


    Empire Land, LLC


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


    #9.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

    HOLDING DATE


    From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

    01/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

    12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

    10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

    11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/27/19,

    3/27/19


    EH      


    Docket 1

    Tentative Ruling:

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

    ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

    Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

    Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

    Defendant(s):

    Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Empire Land, LLC


    Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


    Chapter 7

    James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

    Larry Day Represented By

    Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

    Neil M Miller Represented By

    Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

    Paul Roman Represented By

    Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

    O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

    Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

    Plaintiff(s):

    RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

    Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

    Michael I Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Empire Land, LLC


    Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur


    Chapter 7

    Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

    Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

    Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

    Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

    Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

    2:00 PM

    6:08-14592


    Empire Land, LLC


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:10-01329 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


    #10.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

    (Defendant - Empire Partners, Inc) HOLDING DATE


    From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

    1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

    12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

    10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

    11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/27,

    3/27/19


    EH      


    Docket 1

    Tentative Ruling:

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders Michael I Gottfried

    ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

    Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

    Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

    Defendant(s):

    Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Empire Land, LLC


    Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


    Chapter 7

    James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

    Previti Realty Fund, L.P. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

    The James Previti Family Trust Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

    Plaintiff(s):

    RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

    Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I Gottfried

    Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

    John P Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

    Trustee(s):

    Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I Gottfried

    Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M Landau

    Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

    Lisa N Nobles Peter J Gurfein Paul Hastings

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Empire Land, LLC


    Roye Zur Amy Evans

    Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:13-25794


    ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


    Chapter 11


    #11.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re Another Meridian Company LLC


    From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19


    Also #12 & #13 EH   

    Docket 630


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:13-25794


    ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


    Chapter 11


    #12.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re ASR Constructors Inc


    From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19


    Also #11 & #13 EH   

    Docket 630


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:13-25794


    ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


    Chapter 11


    #13.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re Inland Machinery, Inc


    From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19


    Also #11 & #12 EH   

    Docket 630


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:13-25794


    ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


    #14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01286. Complaint by ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation, Another Meridian Company, LLC, Inland Machinery, Inc. against Gotte Electric, Inc., Insurance Company Of The West, Employment Development Department, Trico-Savi Business Park, L.P., a California limited partnership, Angela Denise McKnight, Steven Schonder, Western Alliance Bank, an Arizona corporation, United states of america, Carlin Law Group APC, Ledcor Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

    Complaint in Interpleader Nature of Suit: (02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) (Bastian, James)

    Trico-Savi Business Park L.P. - Dismissed 12/28/17

    Western Alliance Bank, dba Torrey Pines Bank - Dismissed 2/1/18 Gotte Electric, Inc - Dismissed 3/14/18

    Ledcor Construction Inc - Dismissed 3/26/18


    From: 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Defendant(s):

    Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

    Jennifer Leland

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation

    David B Shemano Howard J Weg


    Chapter 11

    Employment Development Represented By

    Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

    Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

    Steven Schonder Pro Se

    United states of america Represented By Charles Parker Najah J Shariff

    Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

    DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

    Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:15-14230


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01214 Pringle v. Histen, APC et al


    #15.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01214. Complaint by John Pringle against Harry J Histen, APC, Harry J Histen, III. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Complaint for: (1) Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11

    U.S.C. § 544(b) and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3439.04(a)(2), 3439.05; (2) Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B); (3) Recovery of Avoided Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550; and (4) Disallowance of Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Goe, Robert)


    From: 1/9/19, 3/6/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/21/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

    Defendant(s):

    Harry J Histen, APC Pro Se

    Harry J Histen, III Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    John Pringle Represented By

    Robert P Goe

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Robert P Goe Charity J Manee


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20477


    Connie Gutierrez


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01028 Whitmore v. Gutierrez et al


    #16.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01028. Complaint by Robert S. Whitmore against Daniel Gutierrez, Toby Gutierrez. (Charge To Estate). (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet # 2 Summons and Notice of Status Conference) Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))

    (Main case dismissed 4/1/19)


    From: 4/10/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 4/22/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Connie Gutierrez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Defendant(s):

    Daniel Gutierrez Represented By Lane K Bogard

    Toby Gutierrez Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Julie Philippi

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Connie Gutierrez


    Julie Philippi


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:19-10279


    Thomas Mount


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01050 Baker et al v. Mount


    #17.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01050. Complaint by Jonathan Baker, Baker Entertainment Group against Thomas Mount. Unlawful and Fraudulent Business Practice Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. et seq.

    Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)) (Cohen, Baruch)


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Thomas Mount Represented By Christopher Hewitt

    Defendant(s):

    Thomas Mount Represented By Christopher Hewitt

    Plaintiff(s):

    Jonathan Baker Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    Baker Entertainment Group Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:13-27611


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:16-01163 Revere Financial Corporation v. Burns


    #18.00 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings re Answer by Don C. Burns EH   

    Docket 137


    Tentative Ruling:


    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(c) & (f), incorporated into bankruptcy proceeds by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7012(b), state the following:


    (c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.


    1. Motion to Strike. The Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act:


      1. on its own; or


      2. on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.


    There are several potentially applicable definitions of "judgment." For instance, FED.

    R. CIV. P. Rule 54(a) states, in pertinent part: " ‘Judgment’ as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies." FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9001(7) includes an additional definition of judgment. The most specific, and therefore, most appropriate, definition of judgment is contained in FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9002(5), which provides:

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Jay Roger

    The following words and phrases used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure made applicable to cases under the Code by these rules have the meaning indicated unless that are inconsistent with the context:


  2. "Judgment" includes any order appealable to an appellate court.


    Chapter 7



    Leave to amend pleadings is to be granted liberally, and the law on the issue is unsettled, meaning that the Court would not prohibit Defendant from amending its answer. See FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 15(a)(2), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7015, ("The Court should freely give leave when justice so requires."). As a result, even if the Court did strike Defendants’ affirmative defenses for being insufficiently pled, it does not appear that the relief requested by Plaintiff could be construed as a judgment, since Defendant would be free to amend their answer in response.


    This conclusion is supported by the case law cited by Plaintiff in its argument section. The Court takes issue with Plaintiff’s fundamental misrepresentation of the caselaw it is citing. There are two sentences in the argument section of docket number 137 which stand for the proposition that a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to affirmative defenses is a proper procedural approach, neither of which are adequately supported by relevant caselaw.


    The first sentence is on lines 12-14 of page 10, and states: "A court will grant a motion for judgment pleadings against a defendant’s affirmative defenses if the affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled." This statement is followed by the following citation: Westport Ins. Corp. v. N. Cal. Relief, 76 F. Supp. 3d 869, 882 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Nyberg v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2016 WL 3176585 at * 2 (D. Or. 2016); see also Pac. W. Grp. v. Real Time Solutions, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 27037, *1-3 (9th Cir. 2008) ("The district court properly granted partial judgment on the pleadings. "); Savage v. Council on Am.-Islamic Relations, Inc., 2008 WL

    2951281, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Three of these four cases appear irrelevant to the issue before the Court. The district court in Westport Ins. concluded that standard judgment on the pleadings (i.e. judgment on the Plaintiff’s own causes of action) was

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7

    appropriate in that case notwithstanding the existence of affirmative defenses raised in the answer. The Ninth Circuit in Pac. W. dealt with a defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, yet Plaintiff has decided to arbitrarily include the citation with a quotation that "[t]he district court properly granted partial judgment on the pleadings." Likewise, the district court in Savage dealt with a defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Nyberg does stand for the assertion made by Plaintiff, but the district court in that case engaged in no analysis of the characterization and simply decided to defer to the characterization adopted by the plaintiff.


    The second sentence is at lines 3-4 of page 11, and states: "A court should grant judgment on the pleadings if the answer contains insufficient affirmative defenses." This statement cites Westport and FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(f). Westport does support the quoted sentence, but is not applicable to a motion for judgment as to affirmative defenses. And Plaintiff is not moving under Rule 12(f) so that citation is inapposite.


    Presumably, the reason that Plaintiff has adopted this questionable procedural approach is that a motion under Rule 12(f) is no longer available, absent permission of the Court, because the deadline for that motion has passed. Nevertheless, Plaintiff then shifts to cases applying Rule 12(f) without disclosing the same. In presenting the applicable legal standard, Plaintiff next cites Ross v. White, 2018 WL 3419647 (C.D. Cal. 2018) and Ganley v. Cnty. of San Mateo, 2007 WL 902551 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

    Both of these cases deal with Rule 12(f) and contain no mention of Rule 12(c).

    Given that Plaintiff has filed a Rule 12(c) motion, but declined to support the motion with adequate caselaw, it is somewhat unclear how this Court should proceed. The Court finds the following well-reasoned analysis, from Jou v. Adalian, 2017 WL 3624340 at *2-*4 (D. Hi. 2017) to be particularly helpful:


    The court next addresses whether the Motion is timely. If filed as a motion to strike an "insufficient defense" under Rule 12(f), then it is barred by Rule 12(f)(2), which requires that a Rule 12(f) motion be filed "within 21 days after being served with the pleading." But if filed as a motion for failure "to state a legal defense to a claim under Rule 12(h)(2)(B), then it is timely.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7


    As a starting point, most courts appear to assume that any motion to strike an affirmative defense must be brought under Rule 12(f).


    But these cases largely ignore Rule 12’s second method of challenging an affirmative defense – Rule 12(h)(2)(B) As stated, this rule permits the filing of a Rule 12(c) motion for failure to state a legal defense to a claim. So, the question becomes how to reconcile Rule 12(f) and Rule 12(h)(2)(B). More specifically, what is the difference between challenging an "insufficient defense" under Rule 12(f) and challenging the failure to state a "legal defense" to a claim under Rule 12(h)(2)(B)? In answering this question, the court follows some general rules of statutory constructions. The court starts, of course, with plain meaning. And an interpretation that gives effect to every clause is generally preferable to one that does not. As a corollary rule, no provision should be construed to be entirely redundant. Thus, a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.


    As an initial matter, the court rejects the view that Rule 12(h)(2)(B) simply allows a Rule 12(f) motion to be filed beyond the deadline set forth in Rule 12(f). This interpretation renders meaningless Rule 12(f)(2)’s requirement that a Rule 12(f) motion be filed within twenty-one days of service of the complaint. And, it fails to recognize the different between an "insufficient" and a "legal" defense.


    The court concludes that the difference between an "insufficient defense" and the failure to "state a legal defense to a claim" is based on the type of challenge being made. A claim of an "insufficient defense" covers a broader array of possible challenges than one claiming failure to state a "legal defense." In fact, while every failure to state a "legal defense" would also likely be an "insufficient defense," the reverse isn’t true – some defenses can be insufficient but still state a legal defense. This follows from the definition of "legal defense" as a complete and adequate defense in a court of law. If a defense is not a complete and adequate one, it is not a legal defense. So, for example, if an affirmative defense of laches is not available as a matter of law in a particular case, then the plaintiff could move under Rule 12(h)(2)

    1. (via Rule 12(c)) for judgment on the pleadings as to that defense. But if a

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Jay Roger

      Plaintiff simply claims that an affirmative defense as pled is too conclusory or boilerplate, then that claim does not challenge legal adequacy; instead, it asserts that the defense is insufficient as pled. This reading of Rule 12(f) and 12(h)(2)(B) gives meaning to both provisions and avoids finding any provision superfluous.


      Here, Plaintiff simply claims that the majority of affirmative defenses are boilerplate and conclusory – i.e., they are insufficient as pled. The court thus construes the Motion as being brought pursuant to Rule 12(f). And because it was filed many months late, it is untimely.


      Chapter 7



      [Citations, quotations, and footnotes omitted]. The Court also notes that the thorough analysis provided by the district court in Jou also resolves this Court’s earlier-stated concerns about the definition of "judgment"; if an affirmative defense is truly unavailable as a matter of law, then there would be no reason to permit leave to amend.


      Therefore, in line with the reasoning outlined above, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion with respects to the six affirmatives defenses that Plaintiff contends were inadequately pled. The proper remedy for Plaintiff was to file a Rule 12(f) motion, which, at present, would be untimely.


      The Court will, however, consider whether the remaining six affirmative defenses are unavailable as a matter of law. Those six defenses are: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) Business Judgment Rule; (3) Setoff/Recoupment; (4) Unlawful restrain from engaging in a lawful profession under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600; (5) Indemnification; (6) No damage. While not explicitly stated as an affirmative defense, the Court will also consider Defendant’s reservation of rights to assert other affirmative defenses, and non-waiver of any defenses not plead.


      The Court first, using its authority to strike sua sponte under FRCP 12(f)(1), finds that "reservation of rights and non-waiver" is not a legal, affirmative defense, and is properly stricken as a matter of law. See, e.g., A.K.C. v. City of Santa Ana, 2010 WL

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Jay Roger


      Chapter 7

      11469021 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2010). The Court further agrees with Plaintiff, for the reasons set forth in the Motion, that the first and ninth defenses, failure to state and claim and no damage, simply negate an element of the claims that Plaintiff is already required to provide. As a result, these two affirmative defenses are not properly characterized as affirmative defenses because Plaintiff is already required to prove the opposite. See, e.g., Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) ("A defense which demonstrates that plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative defense.").


      The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant’s second affirmative defense, the Business Judgment Rule, is insufficient as a matter of law in this matter. The Business Judgment Rule only protects the directors of a corporation from shareholder or creditor action based on the soundness of their business decisions. Tindall v. First Solar, 892 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, Defendant, an attorney, is attempting to use the rule to justify his legal services to his client. Unlike in the case of corporate directors, this Court is, by its nature, very well positioned to evaluate the wisdom of legal decisions. See Id. Accordingly, the Court strikes this defense.


      The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that the third affirmative defense, setoff, is unavailable in the context of fraudulent and preferential transfer claims. Calvert v. Erdman (In re Northwest Terr. Mint, LLC), 591 B.R. 852, 867 (W.D. Wa. Bankr. 2018) (citing In re Acequia, Inc., 34 F.3d 800, 817 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the Court strikes this defense.


      Defendant’s sixth defense claims that Plaintiff’s action is barred by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600, which voids contracts restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 (2019). Defendant appears to be trying to use § 16600 to allege that Plaintiff’s complaint is an attempt to unlawfully restrain Defendant from engaging in an unlawful profession. As § 16600 only covers contracts, the Court finds this defense insufficient as a matter of law and strikes the defense.


      Defendant’s seventh affirmative defense is for indemnification, claiming that debtor’s bankruptcy estate is obligated to indemnify Defendant for any damages awarded to

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Jay Roger


      Chapter 7

      Plaintiff. Indemnification is not an affirmative defense, but a claim that must be "pleaded and proven." Norddeutscher Lloyd v. Jones Stevedoring Co., 490 F.2d 648, 650 (9th Cir. 1973). The Court accordingly strikes Defendant’s affirmative defense of indemnification as insufficient as a matter of law.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion IN PART, striking the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth affirmative defenses with prejudice, and DENY the remainder of the Motion without prejudice.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

      Defendant(s):

      Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns

      Movant(s):

      Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

      Plaintiff(s):

      Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

      Trustee(s):

      Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Jay Roger


      Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay Franklin R Fraley Jr


      Chapter 7

      2:00 PM

      6:13-30625


      John Martin Mata


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01089 Mata et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 et a


      #19.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment From: 2/27/19, 3/27/19

      Also #20 EH   

      Docket 33

      Tentative Ruling:

      MARCH 27TH, 2019


      PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


      On December 31, 2013, John & Livier Mata ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 14, 2014, Debtors received a discharge, and the following day their case was closed.


      On April 18, 2018, Debtors filed a complaint against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4, and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 (collectively, "Defendants") seeking for determination of dischargeability. Specifically, Debtors seek a declaratory judgment that their loans were discharged. On May 18, 2018, Defendants filed their answer.


      On January 9, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 5, 2019, Debtors filed their opposition. Defendants filed their reply to Debtor’s opposition on February 13, 2019. This matter has been continued once by the Court.


      FACTUAL BACKGROUND


      The background of the extant case is simple, but the underlying context is far more complex.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John Martin Mata


      Chapter 7

      First Marblehead Corporation is a formerly NYSE listed private company that, in the mid-2000’s, was a dominant player in the private student loan business. In early 2001, it purchased the operating assets of The Education Resources Institute (hereinafter "TERI"), a nonprofit group primarily involved in the guaranteeing of private student loans. Beginning in 2001, First Marblehead established a financial plan under which banks would offer private student loans, which would then be collected and repackaged into National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (hereinafter "NCSLT"), which would all be, at least ostensibly, guaranteed by TERI, intended to grant the loans protection from discharge, and were finally offered on the open market for investment. The banks involved in the funding of these loans include JP Morgan, HSBC, Citizens, PNC, and, in this particular case, Charter One, among many others. There were 15 NCSLTs in total, owning more than 800,000 private loans worth billions of dollars.1


      Beginning in 2005, First Marblehead became increasingly aggressive in expanding loan volume to riskier debtors and increasing the value of those loans. As the economy began its downturn in 2007, default rates began rapidly increasing, resulting in the eventual bankruptcy of TERI in 2008.


      The question of the nature of the dischargeability of the NCSLT loans has since been taken on by bankruptcy courts across the country. This is one of those cases.


      John Mata took out three $30,000 loans as part of his graduate studies in counseling at Loma Linda University. These occurred in January of 2006, September of 2006, and August of 2007. Each loan was cosigned by Livier Mata, and carried a respective interest rate of 9, 12, and 14%. The loan agreements each stated that the loan was explicitly limited to the costs of attending the school, and one of the loans, that of January 2006 said that TERI was guaranteeing the loan, while the latter two stated that TERI had the option to guarantee the loan. Each of these loans was allegedly then repackaged into the one of the three trusts who are currently the Defendants in this matter (NCSLT 2006-1, 2006-4, 2007-1).


      LEGAL STANDARD

      Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 56(a) (incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7056).


      The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John Martin Mata


      Chapter 7

      shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Bell v. Cameron Meadows Land Co., 669 F.2d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1982). All reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. Hector v. Wiens, 533 F.2d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1976).


      If the moving party meets its initial burden, the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. However, the non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material fact…." Matsushita Electrical Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986).


      A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.


      LEGAL ANALYSIS


      Defendants are seeking to show that Debtors’ debts are exempt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523.

      11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) states:

      1. A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –


        (8) unless excepting such debt from discharge would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents, for –


        (A)(i) an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or


        (ii) an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship or stipend; or


        (B) any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        John Martin Mata

        Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual


        Chapter 7


        Defendants have stated that their motion for summary judgment is based purely nondischargeability of the debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i), and the Court will treat Defendants’ and Debtors’ argument accordingly. In order for Defendants to establish that Debtors’ debts aren’t dischargeable under § 523(a)(8)(A)(i), they must prove two elements:

        1. that the loans to the Debtors were "educational loans" and;

        2. that the loans were made under any program funded in whole or in part by a nonprofit institution.


It is important to note that discussion of the determination of the dischargeability of student debts, including the discussions that occurred within the court cases cited, all occurs under the shadow of the general rule that exceptions to discharge are to be construed narrowly in favor of the debtor. 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 523.05 (Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed.).

  1. Whether Debtors’ loans were "educational loans."

    Courts analyze whether loans are "educational loans" separately from considering whether they are "qualified educational loans" under 26 U.S.C. § 221. In re Oliver, 499 B.R. 617, 623-4 (Bankr. S.D.In. 2013). § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) requires that the loans be "educational loans", while § 523(a)(8)(B) has a higher standard, requiring that the loans be "qualified educational loans." Id. (finding that all qualified educational loans are educational loans, but not all educational loans are qualified). The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has followed this approach, holding that an "educational loan" was distinct from an "educational benefit" or a "qualified educational loan." See Kashikar v. Turnstile Capital Mgmt., LLC (In re Kashikar), 567 B.R. 160, 166 (9th Cir. BAP 2017).


    The question of whether a loan is an "educational loan" is determined by its stated purpose, not its actual use. See Busson-Sokolik v. Milwaukee Sch. of Eng’g (In re Busson-Sokolik), 635 F.3d 261, 266 (7th Cir. 2011). The fact that a debtor spent loan proceeds in excess of tuition and expenses does not except debt from discharge.

    Murphy v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 282 F.3d 868, 873 (5th Cir. 2002). Educational purpose encompasses both tuition and fees, as well as room, board, and miscellaneous personal expenses, as part of the school’s general cost of attendance as calculated by statute. Id. at 872-3 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1087II(2)-(3). It is up to the individual schools to calculate their reasonable costs of attendance, which determines the disbursement by lenders (with debtors having the choice of how much of said disbursement to accept and use).

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7


    Each of the respective loans in this matter was explicitly restricted to the costs of attending Linda Loma University. (Decl. Bradly Luke, ECF 33, Exhibit A-1 (page 12) (January 2006 loan), Exhibit A-5 (page 57) (September 2006 loan), Exhibit A-9 (page 98) (August 2007 loan)). This appears to clearly state their purpose.


    Debtors seeks to challenge the status of the loans as "educational loans" on three grounds. The first is that the amounts disbursed were far in excess of Linda Loma’s graduate cost of attendance. The second is that the loans carry an unusually high interest rate, have high origination fees, and required a cosigner and credit check. The third is that the loans are not educational loans because they were provided directly to the consumer and ignored the school’s financial aid office.


    While limitation to the cost of attendance is an aspect of "qualified educational loans" not "educational loans", disbursement in great excess of the actual amount needed for educational purpose does argue against a finding that the loan was intended for educational purposes and for a purpose closer to a "student credit card" as the Debtors argue. However, Debtors inexcusably attempts to present the mere tuition cost and mandatory fees of the cost of attending Linda Loma, while completely ignoring the room and board and other miscellaneous expenses explicitly included in the calculations of the true cost of attendance. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. 3 at 25, ECF No. 46 (finding a cost of attendance for Loma Linda of 19,640 purely through the addition of the average full-time graduate tuition of 17,760 and the required fees of 1,880, as reported by Institutional Characteristics). By contrast, Debtors have shown that the amounts were in line with Linda Loma’s stated cost of attendance for graduate students. Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice Exh. 1-3, ECF No. 565 (showing that the tuition costs of Debtor’s program rose from between $33,480-$47,895 to $39,960-57-160 over the course of his three years of attendance, while also showing room and board calculations of more than

    $15,000 for each year that Debtor attended).

    On the second, the Court finds, as other courts have, that commercial features cannot disqualify a loan from being educational, with the sole test being its purpose. Page v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (In re Page), 592 B.R. 334, 336 (8th Cir. BAP 2018). On the third, the Court repeats its finding that purpose controls over form, while also noting that other courts have analyzed direct to consumer loans and the question of whether the loan was disbursed directly to the consumer was a complete non-factor in their decision as to whether they were "educational loans" or not. See id.; see also McDaniel v. Navient Solutions Inc. (In re McDaniel), 590 B.R. 537, 542, 546-551

    (Bankr. D.Colo. 2018).

    In view of the above, the Court cannot find, even after drawing all reasonable

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    inferences for the Debtors’ that they have established any genuine issues of material fact, or questions of law, as to the question of whether these loans were "educational loans."


  2. Whether the loans were "funded, in whole or in part, by a nonprofit institution."


In the current case, Defendants’ claim to exemption from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) is dependent on their showing that a nonprofit has funded the loan program under which the loan was made, either in whole, or in part. Defendants argue that the guarantee of the loan program through which Debtors’ loan was made by The Education Resources Institute (TERI), a nonprofit institution, satisfies this requirement. This splits the question into two elements. First, whether TERI’s guarantee is considered to have legally "funded" the loan program in question.

Secondly, whether TERI did in fact guarantee the loans at issue, an issue of factual, not legal, controversy. Debtors raises a third issue, by arguing that the TERI’s alleged voiding of the guarantees of the loans in question should strip the loans retroactively of their status as being guaranteed by a nonprofit institution.


  1. Whether a nonprofit can "fund" a loan program through guaranteeing the loans.


    This question has been litigated throughout several districts, often involving the NCSLTs, with the general consensus of the courts being that a nonprofit guaranteeing a loan functions is the nonprofit funding, in whole or in part, the loan program under which the educational loan was made. See O’Brien v. First Marblehead Educ. Res., Inc. (In re O’Brien), 419 F.3d 104, 106 (2nd Cir. 2005); see also Educ. Res. Inst. Inc.

    v. Taratuska (In re Taratuska), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93206 at *17-18 (D. MA 2008) (reversing In re Taratuska, 374 B.R. 24, 29 (Bankr. D.MA 2007), the only case cited by Debtors supporting their position that guaranteeing and funding are two separate actions, meaning that nonprofits aren’t "funding" the loan through their guarantee). The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel agrees with this line of reasoning, interpreting (A)(i) as covering "an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution." Inst. of Imaginal Studies v. Christoff (In re Christoff), 527 B.R. 624, 632 (9th Cir. BAP 2015). However, the BAP’s interpretation of (A)(i) has never been litigated.


    In contrast to the general trend cited above, the District of Maine reached an opposite conclusion, finding that the guarantee of a loan by a nonprofit did not constitute the "funding" of the loan. Wiley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Wiley), 579 B.R. 1, 6-7 (Bankr. D.Me. 2017). The Wiley court built this finding on their interpretation of O’Brien, stating that it required the nonprofit to both guarantee the loan and fund the

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John Martin Mata


    Chapter 7

    loan program, as well as on Educ. Res. Inst., Inc. v. Hammarstrom (In re Hammarstrom), 95 B.R. 160, 165 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1989). In re Wiley, 579 B.R. at 6-7. However, there are two problems with there interpretation. The first is that Hammerstrom’s requirement of the direct funding of the loan, as received by the debtor, by the nonprofit was explicitly challenged by the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy

    Appellate Panel in HEMAR Service Corp., Inc. v. Pilcher, 149 B.R. 595, 600 (9th Cir. BAP 1993) (reversing the bankruptcy court’s holding that a student loan could be discharged due to lack of a nonprofit providing the actual funds that debtor received, and finding that Hammarstrom’s requirement was a pure judicial construction, with the real test being whether the nonprofit had played "any meaningful part" in making the funds available under the program). Secondly, the Wiley court’s interpretation of O’Brien is deeply flawed at best. The 2nd Circuit in O’Brien did state that the nonprofit had to "fund" the program, however, it defined "funding" using the bankruptcy court’s test which required that the nonprofit actually pay out the guarantees when the triggering event occurred, and that the loan program’s existence was causally linked to the nonprofit’s provision of a guarantee to the for-profit lender for the loan. See O’Brien, 419 F.3d at 105-6 (specifically adopting the test created by the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court in In re O’Brien, 318 B.R. 258, 260-1 (Bankr.

    S.D.N.Y. 2005)).

    The Court finds persuasive the consensus of courts around the country that a nonprofit’s guaranteeing of a loan program satisfies the requirement of "funding" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) for the purposes of exempting a loan from discharge, including that of the 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and also adopts this interpretation. As such, the Court agrees with Defendants that, if TERI has in fact guaranteed the loan program in question, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


  2. Whether Defendant has established that there is no genuine issue of material fact that TERI actually guaranteed the loan.

    1. Did TERI, on paper, guarantee the loans?

      Debtors argue that there is a material issue of fact concerning whether or not TERI was the actual guarantor of the September 2006 and August 2007 loans. This is based in part on two related grounds: the first is that two of the three loan agreement do not explicitly state that TERI will guarantee the loans, merely that they have the option to do so. The mere existence of an option, rather than direct proof that TERI in fact guaranteed the loan program in question, has been found sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Golden et. al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, et. al., 596

      B.R. 239, 266 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2019). The second issue raised by Debtors is that the NSCLT trust agreement schedules does not specifically list the NextStudent Graduate

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John Martin Mata


      Chapter 7

      Loan as one of the programs transferred or sold to the Trusts (listing instead NextStudent Alternative Loan Program). This has also been found sufficient to create a material issue of fact. See National Coll. Student Loan Trust 2007-4 v. Watson, 2016

      N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5116 at *7 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct. 2016).

      However, it is clear within this case that Debtor’s loans were in fact guaranteed by TERI, and that they were each sold to the respective trusts that make up the defendants. Defendants have disclosed the Loan Financial Activity pages, which identify Debtors by name, and also state that the loans were guaranteed by TERI. Decl. Luke ¶15; Id. Exh. A-3 (page 18 within the declaration). It also includes the identification by social security number of Debtor within the trusts’ contained loans, as well as guarantee agreements between TERI and each of the individual trusts. By contrast, in Golden, the genuine issue of material fact was due to the Defendants only providing the loan documentation stating that the loan potentially could be guaranteed by TERI. In short, the Court cannot find that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether TERI, on paper, guaranteed the loan program which provided Debtors’ loans.

    2. Was TERI actually guarantee the loans?

      In order to fund a loan program through guaranteeing the loans, the guarantee must actually come into effect, instead of just being a paper promise to render the debt exempt from discharge. See O’Brien, 419 F.3d at 105-6. Debtors’ student loan servicer has declared that Debtors’ student loans were guaranteed by TERI, but Debtors allege that the guarantees did not actually occur. Decl. Luke ¶¶ 17, 25, 34 (ECF No. 33-4). As noted by Debtors, evidence demonstrating the actual guarantee by TERI of the loans within the loan program would include guarantee agreements between TERI and the loan originators and, evidence that the loan originators actually paid TERI guarantee fees as agreed upon. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Exh. 4, Defendants Responses and Objections to Requests for Production No. 7, ECF No. 46 (Debtors requesting "all documents demonstrating that TERI guaranteed the loans" including checks payable by the loan originators to TERI for the guarantee fees and guarantee agreements between TERI and the loan originators).


      However, Debtors appear to have answered this question themselves, when they showed that Defendants had refunded the Royal Bank of Scotland (who wholly owned, at the time of Debtors’ loan creation Citizens Bank, who owned Charter One, the loan originator) $46,000,000 in guarantee fees as part of resolving RBS secured claims against TERI concerning loans extended prior to TERI’s bankruptcy. Id. at Exh. 6, Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of The Education Resources Institute, Inc at page 65; Id. at 11 (defining "collateral account" as a pledged account, victory fund, pool account, or joint pool account—all of which were accounts

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John Martin Mata


      Chapter 7

      containing guarantee fees intended for the payment of guarantees should the conditions be triggered); see also Supplementary Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 4, Disclosure Statement for Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of The Education Resources Institute at pages 3-7, ECF No. 55 (explaining how the myriad banks decided how TERI should segregate or not segregate the guarantee fees they paid in view of paying out guarantees on the loan). The massive balances on the collateral accounts of the NCSLTs, including all three trusts in question, revealed by the disclosure statement to the confirmed Fourth Amended Plan, shows that the combined guarantee fees sequestered for guarantee payments, as well as the recoveries collected, numbered in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Disclosure Statement at page 11.


      It is difficult for this Court to find that Debtors have raised a genuine question of fact as to the substance of TERIs guarantees, when the Debtors themselves have put forward clear evidence that tens of millions of dollars were being paid in guarantee fees to TERI, including tens of millions by Charter One, and TERI was simultaneously shelling out tens of millions of dollars in loan purchases as part of the guarantee.


  3. Whether TERI has voided their guarantee of the loan program in question, and whether, if shown, this would retroactively change whether the loans were funded by a nonprofit institution.


Debtors correctly assert that TERI’s debt guarantees for loans extended prior to TERI’s petition were voided as a part of their confirmed plan for reorganization. Fourth Amended Plan at page 40, ECF No. 46. Defendants appear to be trying to confuse the Court by pointing to the transition agreement between TERI and RBS through which RBS agreed to accept the transfer of "pipeline" loans (loans applied for before, or on TERI’s petition, but extended by the lender after). See Plaintiff’s Opposition, Exh. 5, Transition Agreement Between TERI and RBS at pages 3-4.

However, it is clear that the settling of the guarantees for loans prior to bankruptcy, as illustrated above, was the foundation of TERI’s reorganization, and the Court proceeds accordingly.


However, even if the guarantee is no longer extant, the Court does not find that this changes the fundamental nature of how the loans were funded in the first place. § 523(a)(8)(A)(i) states that the exemption of a loan from discharge is dependent on the loan program under which it was made, not the context under which it still exists. The exemptions under § 523 look at actions of the debtor at the time that they took the action in question, not the status of those actions at the time of the current proceedings. Debtor should not be allowed to discharge a debt that he knew was intended to be exempt at the time he made the loan, was made under a program clearly

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Chapter 7

intended to protect the loans from discharge, and would still be exempt at the current time, barring the fact that the guarantor collapsed because too many other debtors had defaulted on their loans.


As such, the Court finds unpersuasive the argument that the rejection of TERI’s argument that TERI’s bankruptcy has retroactively changed the status of Debtors’ debt.


TENTATIVE RULING


THE COURT FINDS THAT DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND THAT THERE ARE NO GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS HEREBY GRANTED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark

Defendant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard James Schultz

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard James Schultz

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard James Schultz

Joint Debtor(s):

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Damian P Richard James Schultz


Chapter 7

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard James Schultz

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard James Schultz

Plaintiff(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-30625


John Martin Mata


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01089 Mata et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 et a


#20.00 CONT-Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01089. Complaint by John Martin Mata, Livier Mata against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-4, National

Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1. (Charge To Estate) - Filing Fee Not Required. Determination of Discharge Under 11 U.S.C. Sect 523(a)(8) Nature of Suit: 63 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(8), student loan, 91 - Declaratory judgment


From: 6/27/18, 8/22/18, 2/27/19, 3/27/19 Also #19

EH       


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark

Defendant(s):

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard James Schultz

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE Represented By Damian P Richard James Schultz

National Collegiate Student Loan Represented By

Damian P Richard James Schultz

2:00 PM

CONT...


John Martin Mata


Chapter 7

Joint Debtor(s):

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark

Plaintiff(s):

John Martin Mata Represented By Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Livier Mata Represented By

Michael E Clark Austin C Smith

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:13-18779


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Motion For Order Denying Discharge Or Dismissing Case From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19, 3/14/19, 4/11/19, 4/25/19

EH   


Docket 172

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

1/31/19

BACKGROUND


On May 17, 2013, Rigoberto Baez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 25, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was subsequently amended on two occasions.


On December 6, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of final cure mortgage payment. On December 27, 2018, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. filed a response, stating that Debtor was

$11,338.57 delinquent in post-confirmation payments.


On December 28, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to deny discharge or, in the alternative, dismiss the case. Because Trustee has only provided legal analysis support dismissal of the case, not citing any legal basis to deny a discharge in this situation, the Court will consider the motion as a motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The opposition asserts that Debtor disputes Wells Fargo’s accounting, and that Debtor will work with Wells Fargo to resolve the situation.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Rigoberto Baez


Chapter 13


DISCUSSION



As noted by Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c)(6) states:


(c) Except as provided in subsection (f) of this section, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 of this title, or may dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause, including ---


(6) material default by the debtor with respect to a term of a confirmed plan


Trustee asserts that direct payments to Wells Fargo are payments under the plan, and the default in this case is material. Debtor has not provided any contrary legal authority on either point. The Court agrees with Trustee that direct payments to a lender are still considered payments under the plan. See, e.g., In Matter of Kessley, 655 Fed. Appx. 242, 244 (5th Cir. 2016); see also In re Evans, 543 B.R. 213 (Bankr.

E.D. Va. 2016) (collecting cases). The Court also agrees that the post-confirmation default of $11,338.57 is material, assuming that that figure is accurate.


TENTATIVE RULING



Debtor to apprise the Court of the status of the post-confirmation delinquency and any efforts to resolve the situation with Wells Fargo. Absent resolution, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Rigoberto Baez


Party Information


Chapter 13

Rigoberto Baez Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-13931


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13


#2.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

Docket 137

Tentative Ruling:

5/9/19

BACKGROUND


On March 28, 2014, Annie Estrada ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On August 6, 2014, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The Chapter 13 plan was subsequently modified twice.


On January 7, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for delinquency, identifying a delinquency of approximately two months. After two continuances, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, allowing Debtor a ten-day period to convert to Chapter 7 in lieu of dismissal. On April 15, 2019, Debtor filed a notice to conversion to Chapter 7; that notice, however, was withdrawn approximately two hours later. On April 22, 2019, Debtor’s case was dismissed.


On April 24, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal, asserting that Debtor had obtained funds to cure the delinquency on April 15, 2019. The funds do not appear to have been received by Trustee until the day after dismissal, but Debtor’s counsel states that he spoke with the Chapter 13 Trustee on April 15, 2019, and that Counsel was under the impression that the case was not going to be dismissed. On April 25, 2019, Trustee filed comments indicating approval, subject to proper notice being given and Debtor submitting copies of her 2018 tax returns.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13


On April 26, 2019, Debtor filed an amended motion to vacate dismissal.


DISCUSSION



The Court notes that Debtor has set this matter for hearing on shortened noticed without filing an application shortening time. Debtor’s notice of hearing sets an opposition deadline of April 25, 2019, the day before the notice was filed. Therefore, notice is improper.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter to May 30, 2019. Debtor to give notice of the continuance to all parties in interest.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen

Movant(s):

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-10929


Christopher John Helme


Chapter 13


#3.00 Application for Compensation with Notice of Opportunity to Request a Hearing on Motion and Proof of Service for Todd L Turoci, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 2/7/2019 to 3/14/2019, Fee: $350.00, Expenses: $.


EH   


Docket 175


Tentative Ruling:

Having reviewed the supplemental declaration of Debtor, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the application in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Christopher John Helme Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Christopher John Helme Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-13351


Hector Davalos Nuno and Nanci Tomoye Nuno


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Application for Compensation for Additional Fees and Related Expenses in a Pending Chapter 13 Case Subject to a RARA with attached Exhibit A and Proof of Service for Jenny L Doling, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 2/6/2019 to 3/14/2019, Fee: $1250.00, Expenses: $0.


From: 4/25/19 EH   

Docket 75


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Hector Davalos Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Nanci Tomoye Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Hector Davalos Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Nanci Tomoye Nuno Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Hector Davalos Nuno and Nanci Tomoye Nuno


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-13599


Maurice Frank Manceau


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Application for Compensation of Attorney for Debtor for Additional Fees and Related Expenses in a Pending Chapter 13 Case Subject to a RARA with attached Exhibits and Proof of Service for Jenny L Doling, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 12/5/2018 to 3/6/2019, Fee: $930.00, Expenses: $0.


From: 4/25/19 EH   

Docket 99


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17037


Luis A Andrade and Sarah Marie Andrade


Chapter 13


#6.00 Motion for Allowance and Payment of Administrative Expense EH   

Docket 114

Tentative Ruling:

5/9/19

BACKGROUND


On August 22, 2017, Luis & Sarah Andrade ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On September 28, 2017, the Court approved a stipulation between Cab West, LLC ("Cab West") and Debtors, which provided for Debtors to assume a lease with Cab West for a 2017 Ford F150 and to make direct payments to Cab West. On October 4, 2017, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On April 5, 2019, Cab West filed a motion for allowance of an administrative expense. According to the motion, the lease of the Ford F150 matured in February 2019, and Debtors incurred unpaid charges of $1,512.62. Cab West requests an administrative priority expense pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A).


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) states:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Luis A Andrade and Sarah Marie Andrade

    1. After notice and hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including –


      (1)(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate including ---


      Chapter 13



      Among other cases, Cab West cites In re Masek in supports of its argument. In re Masek stated, in pertinent part, that:


      A debtor’s assumption of a lease or executory contract changes the posture of the relationship between the parties to the contract. Some courts have explained the act of assuming a least as an act of administration that created an obligation of the postpetition bankruptcy estate which is legally distinct from the obligations of the parties prior to the assumption. A breach of the assumed obligations therefore constitutes a post-petition breach of post-petition obligations under 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)(2)(A), and is afforded administrative expense priority. Allowance of administrative expenses under § 503(b)(1)(A), combined with the power to assume an executory contract or unexpired lease in a Chapter 13 plan under § 1322(b)(7), renders claims resulting from assumption of a lease actual and necessary costs of preserving the bankruptcy estate. Pearson was a Chapter 13 case in which the debtors assumed, then defaulted on, a vehicle lease. The court allowed an administrative claim for the $6,000 balance due under the lease after the car was surrendered and sold.


      301 B.R. 336, 337-38 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted). But see Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Benn, 362 B.R. 1, 6 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (affirming bankruptcy court’s disagreement with Masek).


      For the reasons articulated in In re Masek, 301 B.R. 336 (Bankr D. Neb. 2003) and In re Michalek, 393 B.R. 642, (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2008), and noting that service appears proper and no party has objected, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h),

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Luis A Andrade and Sarah Marie Andrade


      Chapter 13


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, ALLOWING Cab West an administrative claim in the amount of $1,512.62.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis A Andrade Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Sarah Marie Andrade Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

      Movant(s):

      Cab West, LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-17589


      Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


      Chapter 13


      #7.00 Motion for Turnover of Property EH   

      Docket 78

      Tentative Ruling:

      5/9/2019

      BACKGROUND


      On September 11, 2017, Ryan & Jennifer McHugh ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On November 9, 2017, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The plan has subsequently been modified twice.


      On April 7, 2019, Debtors filed a motion for turnover, requesting turnover from Wexler Wallace LLP of certain funds received from a confidential personal injury settlement.


      DISCUSSION



      The Court notes that service appears improper for several reasons. First, it does not appear that Wexler Wallace LLP has been served with the instant motion at all.

      Second, a motion for turnover is, at the least, a contested matter under FED. R. BANKR.

      P. Rule 9014 and, therefore, the Rule 7004 service requirements apply. Finally, Rule 7001(1) requires that a motion for turnover, with certain exceptions not applicable here, requires an adversary proceeding. While this requirement may be waivable in

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


      Chapter 13

      certain circumstances, service of the underlying motion here is inadequate.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-19892


      Lena Dolores Wade


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 CONT Application for Compensation of Attorney for Debtor for Additional Fees and Related Expenses in a Pending Chapter 13 Case Subject to a RARA with attached Exhibit A and Proof of Service for Jenny L Doling, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/15/2018 to 10/24/2018, Fee: $1630.00, Expenses: $0.


      From: 4/25/19 EH   

      Docket 53


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lena Dolores Wade Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Movant(s):

      Lena Dolores Wade Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-11081


      Stephen Daniel Payan


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 Application for Compensation for Hallstrom, Klein & Ward, LLP, Debtor's Attorney, Period: to, Fee: $2345, Expenses: $0.


      EH   


      Docket 52


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Stephen Daniel Payan Represented By Paul J Kurtzhall

      Movant(s):

      Hallstrom, Klein & Ward, LLP Represented By Paul J Kurtzhall

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-15766


      Deborah A Neville and Ronnie L Neville


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 CONT Stipulation regarding modifying plan From: 4/11/19

      EH   


      Docket 63


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Deborah A Neville Represented By Hayk Grigoryan

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ronnie L Neville Represented By Hayk Grigoryan

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17079


      Ronald A Carter


      Chapter 13


      #11.00 Motion to Allow Claim 2 EH   

      Docket 37

      Tentative Ruling:

      5/9/19

      BACKGROUND:


      On August 21, 2018, Ronald Carter ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. The claims bar date was October 30, 2018. On November 13, 2018, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


      On April 10, 2019, U.S. Bank Trust National Association ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $312,650.60 ("Claim 2"), as well as a motion to allow Claim 2. Creditor’s argues that because it did not receive notice of the bankruptcy, and because it is in the Debtor’s best interest, Claim 2 should be allowed. The Court notes that Creditor has not provided any legal argument in support of its position.


      ANALYSIS:


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(c)(3) provides for the creation of a claim bar deadline, and FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3002(c) provides certain exceptions to the rule that claims must be timely filed. Creditor has not argued that any of these exceptions apply. The

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Ronald A Carter


      Chapter 13

      Court notes that recent amendments resulted in the creation of FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3002(c)(6)(A). While case law on the recent amendment is sparse, it does not appear that the amendment is applicable to this situation. See 9 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 3002.03[7] (16th ed. 2017) ("A creditor may not argue under Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) that the notice was insufficient for reasons other than those caused by the untimely filing of the list of creditors.").


      "[T]he Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that the deadline to file a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 proceeding is ‘rigid,’ and the bankruptcy court lacks equitable power to extent this deadline after the fact." In re Barker, 839 F.3d 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016). "By virtue of Rule 9006(b)(3), a bankruptcy court does not have discretion to enlarge the time periods fixed by Rule 3002(c) nor permit an untimely claim when none of Rule 3002(c)’s five exceptions is applicable." In re Hayes, 327 B.R. 453, 458 (Bankr.

      C.D. Cal. 2005) (footnote omitted); see also In re Edelman, 237 B.R. 146, 152 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999). Here, none of Rule 3002(c)’s exceptions apply.


      In response to Creditor’s argument that allowance of Claim 2 is in the Debtor’s best interests, the Court notes that 11 U.S.C. § 502(a) provides that a proof of claim is deemed allowed until a party in interest objects. While the Court will not affirmatively deem the late-filed Claim 2 to be allowed, in the absence of any objection Claim is deemed allowed.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Ronald A Carter


      Chapter 13

      Ronald A Carter Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Movant(s):

      U.S. Bank Trust National Represented By

      Erin M McCartney

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-19358


      Erik A Morales


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 Motion to Disallow Claim No 4 AMERICAN EXPRESS Also #13 - #15

      EH   


      Docket 32

      Tentative Ruling:

      5/9/19

      BACKGROUND:


      On November 1, 2018, Erik Morales ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 30, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed


      On December 31, 2018, American Express National Bank filed two proofs of claim:

      (1) an unsecured claim in the amount of $658.39 ("Claim 4"); and (2) an unsecured claim in the amount of $4,658.03 ("Claim 5"). On January 7, 2019, LVNV Funding, LLC filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $866.99 ("Claim 8").


      On April 8, 2019, Debtor filed objections to Claim 4, Claim 5, and Claim 8. Debtor argues that all three claims are unenforceable due to the statute of limitations.


      APPLICABLE LAW:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Erik A Morales


      Chapter 13


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Erik A Morales


      Chapter 13

      11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


      1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


        1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 4 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of February 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 4 is unenforceable.


Claim 5 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of February 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 5 is unenforceable.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13

Claim 8 is based on "retail." This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of September 6, 2004. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 8 is unenforceable.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motions, DISALLOWING Claim 4, Claim 5, and Claim 8.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19358


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13


#13.00 Motion to Disallow Claims CLAIM 5 AMERICAN EXPRESS Also #12 - #15

EH   


Docket 33

Tentative Ruling:

5/9/19

BACKGROUND:


On November 1, 2018, Erik Morales ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 30, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed


On December 31, 2018, American Express National Bank filed two proofs of claim:

(1) an unsecured claim in the amount of $658.39 ("Claim 4"); and (2) an unsecured claim in the amount of $4,658.03 ("Claim 5"). On January 7, 2019, LVNV Funding, LLC filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $866.99 ("Claim 8").


On April 8, 2019, Debtor filed objections to Claim 4, Claim 5, and Claim 8. Debtor argues that all three claims are unenforceable due to the statute of limitations.


APPLICABLE LAW:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 4 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of February 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 4 is unenforceable.


Claim 5 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of February 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 5 is unenforceable.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13

Claim 8 is based on "retail." This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of September 6, 2004. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 8 is unenforceable.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motions, DISALLOWING Claim 4, Claim 5, and Claim 8.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19358


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13


#14.00 Motion to Disallow Claim 8 LVNV FUNDING Also #12 - #15

EH   


Docket 34

Tentative Ruling:

5/9/19

BACKGROUND:


On November 1, 2018, Erik Morales ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 30, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed


On December 31, 2018, American Express National Bank filed two proofs of claim:

(1) an unsecured claim in the amount of $658.39 ("Claim 4"); and (2) an unsecured claim in the amount of $4,658.03 ("Claim 5"). On January 7, 2019, LVNV Funding, LLC filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $866.99 ("Claim 8").


On April 8, 2019, Debtor filed objections to Claim 4, Claim 5, and Claim 8. Debtor argues that all three claims are unenforceable due to the statute of limitations.


APPLICABLE LAW:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 4 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of February 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 4 is unenforceable.


Claim 5 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of February 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 5 is unenforceable.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13

Claim 8 is based on "retail." This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of September 6, 2004. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 8 is unenforceable.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motions, DISALLOWING Claim 4, Claim 5, and Claim 8.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19358


Erik A Morales


Chapter 13


#15.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

Also #12 - #14


EH   


Docket 29


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Erik A Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10103


Jeffrey Allan Cohn


Chapter 13


#16.00 Order to show cause why Stephen Burton should not be sanctioned in the amount of $1000


Also #17 EH   

Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeffrey Allan Cohn Represented By Stephen L Burton

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10103


Jeffrey Allan Cohn


Chapter 13


#17.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/28/19

Also #16 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeffrey Allan Cohn Represented By Stephen L Burton

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10276


Julie Michelle Tsosie


Chapter 13


#18.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/28/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Michelle Tsosie Represented By Alon Darvish

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10633


Johna Sue Gibson


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Johna Sue Gibson Represented By Manfred Schroer

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10773


Stacie Lynn Tellez


Chapter 13


#20.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 4/25/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stacie Lynn Tellez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10849


Vincent James Carabba


Chapter 13


#21.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 4/25/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vincent James Carabba Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10922


Carlos G Rodriguez and Rita S Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#22.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 4/25/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carlos G Rodriguez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Joint Debtor(s):

Rita S Rodriguez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10932


Malta Centeno Lambert


Chapter 13


#23.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 4/25/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Malta Centeno Lambert Represented By Yelena Gurevich

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11087


Joyce M Hightower


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/1/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joyce M Hightower Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11090


Angela Clarice Atou


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11103


Golda Y Williams


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Golda Y Williams Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11106


Kervin Rayal Routt


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kervin Rayal Routt Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11116


Julie Gamido


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julie Gamido Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11121


David Vogel


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/23/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Vogel Represented By

Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11122


Martin Ontiveros


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11129


Patrick M Reilly and Karen J Reilly


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Patrick M Reilly Represented By James T Lillard

Joint Debtor(s):

Karen J Reilly Represented By James T Lillard

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11133


Jerry Arnold La Cues and Pamela Ann La Cues


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/27/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jerry Arnold La Cues Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Pamela Ann La Cues Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11147


Pedro Ramirez


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pedro Ramirez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11148


Pedro Lopez


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pedro Lopez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11149


Eddy Guillen


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eddy Guillen Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11150


Martha Calleros


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Martha Calleros Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11159


Mary Tejuoso


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/1/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mary Tejuoso Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11202


Raul Gonzales


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/5/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Raul Gonzales Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11204


Gregory Lee Haan, Jr. and Yisel Haan


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gregory Lee Haan Jr. Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Joint Debtor(s):

Yisel Haan Represented By

Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11213


Juvenal Garcia Vargas and Gabriela Garcia


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juvenal Garcia Vargas Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Gabriela Garcia Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11253


David Frisinga


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Frisinga Represented By Amid Bahadori

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11262


Corazon Batacan Dotimas


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Corazon Batacan Dotimas Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11281


Nadia Michelle Lipscomb


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nadia Michelle Lipscomb Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11298


Zahra Booeshagi


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 2/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Zahra Booeshagi Represented By Dennis C. Winters

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11311


Bernardo Ondajon Pamplona


Chapter 13


#45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bernardo Ondajon Pamplona Represented By

Hasmik Jasmine Papian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11320


Dominick Romero


Chapter 13


#46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dominick Romero Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11710


Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


Chapter 13


#47.00 CONT Motion for Order Determining Value of Collateral [11 U.S.C. § 506(a), FRBP 3012]: 2015 Chrysler 200


From: 4/25/19 EH   

Docket 25


Tentative Ruling:


According to the court in In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008)., the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points for property valuation because the text of 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party value of the Chrysler 200. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


4/25/2019


SERVICE: PROPER


OPPOSITION: NONE


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearings for supplemental evidence. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


Chapter 13

Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11323


Blake Jeffrey Simpson


Chapter 13


#48.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/11/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Blake Jeffrey Simpson Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11370


Michael Wright


Chapter 13


#49.00 Motion for Setting Property Value of 2015 Chevrolet Cruze Also #50 & #51

EH   


Docket 14

Tentative Ruling:

5/9/19

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2019, Michael Wright ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On March 12, 2019, Debtor filed two motions to value collateral. The first motion deals with a 2015 Chevrolet Cruze (the "Chevrolet Cruze Motion"); the second motions relates to a 2013 Land Rover Range Rover (the "Land Rover Motion").

DISCUSSION


Regarding the Chevrolet Cruze, the Court notes that Altura CU filed a proof of claim on March 7, 2019, which itself identifies the value of the collateral as $7,469.

Therefore, based upon the express agreement of Altura CU, the Court will GRANT the Chevrolet Cruze Motion.


Regarding the Land Rover Motion, the Court notes that Arrowhead Credit Union filed

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13

a proof of claim on March 25, 2019, which identifies the value of the collateral as

$20,206. Therefore, based upon the express agreement of Arrowhead Credit Union, the Court will GRANT the Land Rover Motion.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motions in their entirety.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Movant(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11370


Michael Wright


Chapter 13


#50.00 Motion for Setting Property Value of 2013 Land Rover Range Rover Also #49 & #51

EH   


Docket 15

Tentative Ruling:

5/9/19

BACKGROUND

On February 22, 2019, Michael Wright ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On March 12, 2019, Debtor filed two motions to value collateral. The first motion deals with a 2015 Chevrolet Cruze (the "Chevrolet Cruze Motion"); the second motions relates to a 2013 Land Rover Range Rover (the "Land Rover Motion").

DISCUSSION


Regarding the Chevrolet Cruze, the Court notes that Altura CU filed a proof of claim on March 7, 2019, which itself identifies the value of the collateral as $7,469.

Therefore, based upon the express agreement of Altura CU, the Court will GRANT the Chevrolet Cruze Motion.


Regarding the Land Rover Motion, the Court notes that Arrowhead Credit Union filed

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13

a proof of claim on March 25, 2019, which identifies the value of the collateral as

$20,206. Therefore, based upon the express agreement of Arrowhead Credit Union, the Court will GRANT the Land Rover Motion.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motions in their entirety.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Movant(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11370


Michael Wright


Chapter 13


#51.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #49 & #50 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11371


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13


#52.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Joint Debtor(s):

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11385


Jeffrey Pierce


Chapter 13


#53.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH   

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 3/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jeffrey Pierce Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11399


Jeremiah M Moore


Chapter 13


#54.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeremiah M Moore Represented By Tom A Moore

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13123


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13


#54.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: SUSANA O. CORONA


From: 5/7/19 EH   

Docket 11

Tentative Ruling: 5/7/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) creates a rebuttable presumption that this case was filed in bad faith because Debtor failed to perform the terms of her previously confirmed plan. Section 362(c)(3)(C) requires that Debtor submit "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut this presumption. Here, Debtor has only provided general evidence that she experienced a significant and temporary decrease in income, and increase in expenses, without include the supporting details necessary to clearly and convincingly rebut the presumption of bad faith. Therefore, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing to May 9, 2019, for Debtor to file a supplemental declaration.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13

Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20292


Humberto Vergara


Chapter 13


#55.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 29


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Humberto Vergara Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-19930


Melinda Kay Allen


Chapter 13


#56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Melinda Kay Allen Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-10257


Cecilia Orozco and Sergio Orozco


Chapter 13


#57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 51


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cecilia Orozco Represented By Majid Safaie Manfred Schroer

Joint Debtor(s):

Sergio Orozco Represented By Majid Safaie Manfred Schroer

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-14084


Martin Linares and Elvia Linares


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 86


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Martin Linares Represented By Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Elvia Linares Represented By

Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20925


Reynauldo J Pennywell and Joyce D Pennywell


Chapter 13


#59.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

EH   


Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Reynauldo J Pennywell Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Joyce D Pennywell Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-21234


Frank A Horzen and Barbara A Horzen


Chapter 13


#60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19

EH   


Docket 117

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

5/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Barbara A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-21236


Ronald A Waters and Trisha Waters


Chapter 13


#61.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19

EH   


Docket 70

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

5/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ronald A Waters Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Trisha Waters Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-10787


Willie J Brooks


Chapter 13


#62.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Delinquency From: 4/25/19

Also #63 EH   

Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Willie J Brooks Represented By Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-10787


Willie J Brooks


Chapter 13


#63.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Infeasibility of Plan From: 4/25/19

Also #62 EH   

Docket 49


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Willie J Brooks Represented By Kevin Tang

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-10811


Manuel Huertas


Chapter 13


#64.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

EH   


Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Manuel Huertas Represented By Marcella Lucente

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-12011


Joshua Lawrence Ferguson and Wendy Mae Ferguson


Chapter 13


#65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 46

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

5/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joshua Lawrence Ferguson Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Joint Debtor(s):

Wendy Mae Ferguson Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14619


Candice Maria Borrego


Chapter 13


#66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 94


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Candice Maria Borrego Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-20240


Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


Chapter 13


#67.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19

EH   


Docket 34

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

5/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Natona Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Joint Debtor(s):

Tameiko Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11701


Wayne Anthony King and Traci Ann Zweck


Chapter 13


#68.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 82


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Wayne Anthony King Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Traci Ann Zweck Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13172


Michelle Cadena Quinn


Chapter 13


#69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 65


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michelle Cadena Quinn Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13742


Elizabeth Lucas


Chapter 13


#70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 40

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elizabeth Lucas Represented By Steven A Wolvek

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15541


Alejandro Guillen and Karla Guillen


Chapter 13


#71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alejandro Guillen Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Joint Debtor(s):

Karla Guillen Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15617


Juan Vargas and Anabely E Vargas


Chapter 13


#72.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19

EH   


Docket 54

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

5/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Juan Vargas Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Anabely E Vargas Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16983


Lakendra Johnson


Chapter 13


#73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 48

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Lakendra Johnson Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16996


Gabriel Cruz


Chapter 13


#74.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

EH   


Docket 35

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

5/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gabriel Cruz Represented By

Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17633


Debra Kristeen Schuler


Chapter 13


#75.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 25


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Debra Kristeen Schuler Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17784


David John Stoykovich, Jr. and Merlina Lynn Burton


Chapter 13


#76.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/18, 4/25/19

EH   


Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David John Stoykovich Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Merlina Lynn Burton Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17869


Michael Ferriola


Chapter 13


#77.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Ferriola Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17883


Norberto Calalay Jimenez and Araceli Corrales Jimenez


Chapter 13


#78.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 41

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

4/3/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Norberto Calalay Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Araceli Corrales Jimenez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-18478


Jose Granados and Norma Granados-Maycott


Chapter 13


#79.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Granados Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Norma Granados-Maycott Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-19044


Kimberly Ida McGee Hager


Chapter 13


#80.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

EH   


Docket 23

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

5/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kimberly Ida McGee Hager Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-19947


Melissa Lynn Dixson


Chapter 7


#1.00 CONT Show Cause Hearing RE: [13] Motion For Contempt Violation Discharge Order


From: 1/9/19, 2/27/19, 3/27/19, 4/24/19, 5/8/19 EH   

Docket 13

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Movant(s):

Melissa Lynn Dixson Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-13514


Michael Ray Sandoval


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 1244 Euclid Avenue Ontario, CA 91762


MOVANT: MICHAEL RAY SANDOVAL


EH   


Docket 9

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


May 21, 2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The failure by creditors to oppose this motion will be treated as consent under LBR 9013-1(f)(3). However, the Court must still come to an independent conclusion as to whether the stay should be continued under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c).


11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) establishes a presumption of bad faith for a Chapter 13 petition if a Debtor has had a previous plan dismissed within the past year for failure to perform the plan as confirmed. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(III)(cc) states that the question of bad faith includes the failure to provide evidence that the new plan will be confirmed and fully completed. Defeating this presumption requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence of good faith, including evidence that the Debtor will be able to confirm and complete the new plan.


A review of the motion indicates clear and convincing evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of bad faith. The Court is thus inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion to continue the stay.

10:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Ray Sandoval


Chapter 13

APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Ray Sandoval Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Movant(s):

Michael Ray Sandoval Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-13081


Miguel Hugo Garcia and Laura Gonzalez


Chapter 7


#2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Lincoln Continental, VIN: 1LN6L9SP8H5612716


MOVANT: CAB WEST, LLC


EH   


Docket 8

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

5/21/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Miguel Hugo Garcia Represented By Donald M Medeiros

Joint Debtor(s):

Laura Gonzalez Represented By Donald M Medeiros

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Miguel Hugo Garcia and Laura Gonzalez


Chapter 7

Cab West, LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12961


LEA HERRERA


Chapter 7


#3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Ford Fusion VIN 3FA6P0G70GR385844


MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


EH   


Docket 17

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

5/21/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LEA HERRERA Represented By George W Williams

Movant(s):

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


LEA HERRERA


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12808


Luis A Quintero


Chapter 7


#4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F5 8HA3 06100


MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 7

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

5/21/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Luis A Quintero Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

American Honda Finance Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Luis A Quintero


Chapter 7

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12450


Corazon D Hernandez De Miranda and Maximo Flores


Chapter 7


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: U 2016 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1500; VIN NO. 3GCPCREC3GG376890


MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


EH   


Docket 7

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

5/21/2019


Service is Proper

Opposition: None (Debtors state their consent).


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Corazon D Hernandez De Miranda Represented By

Lionel E Giron

Joint Debtor(s):

Maximo Flores Miranda Represented By Lionel E Giron

10:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Corazon D Hernandez De Miranda and Maximo Flores


Chapter 7

Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Megan E Lees

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11853


Kathleen Suzanne Sandoval


Chapter 7


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Jeep Cherokee VIN 1C4PJMCB8GW213284


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.


EH   


Docket 14

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

5/21/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kathleen Suzanne Sandoval Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Kathleen Suzanne Sandoval


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11594


Alyssa Nichole Nichols


Chapter 7


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Chevrolet Cruze


MOVANT: THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 10

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

5/21/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alyssa Nichole Nichols Represented By Karen E Lockhart

Movant(s):

The Golden 1 Credit Union Represented By Mirco J Haag

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Alyssa Nichole Nichols


Chapter 7

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11271


Enrique Ocampo-Espin


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Kia Sorento, Vehicle Identification Number: 5XYPG4A37HG206495


MOVANT: FIRST TECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 9

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

5/21/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Enrique Ocampo-Espin Pro Se

Movant(s):

First Tech Federal Credit Union Represented By Nichole Glowin

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Enrique Ocampo-Espin


Chapter 7

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11121


David Vogel


Chapter 13


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: (2012 Dodge Journey Vin # 3C4PDCBG2CT353815) ), In Addition Movant seeks Relief from Co-Debtor Stay


MOVANT: ALLY BANK


EH   


Docket 19

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/23/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Vogel Represented By

Neil R Hedtke

Movant(s):

Ally Bank Represented By

Adam N Barasch

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10103


Jeffrey Allan Cohn


Chapter 13


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 185 West Winslow Street, Upland, CA 91786


MOVANT: CIT BANK N.A.


EH   


Docket 44

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/10/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jeffrey Allan Cohn Represented By Stephen L Burton

Movant(s):

CIT Bank, N.A., and its successors Represented By

Christina J O

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20245


Jennifer Lynn Miller


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 42830 La Brinia Lane Anza, California 92539


MOVANT: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC


From: 4/16/19 EH   

Docket 32

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/13/19

Tentative Ruling:


TENTATIVE RULING 4/16/2019

Opposition: Yes Service: Proper

Parties to appraise the Court of the status of the arrears and adequate protection discussions, if any.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jennifer Lynn Miller Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jennifer Lynn Miller


S Renee Sawyer Blume Bonni S Mantovani


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-20153


Miguel Angel Lopez


Chapter 13


#12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Dodge Grand Caravan, VIN: 2C4RDGBG6GR360890


MOVANT: AUTOMOTIVE CREDIT CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 30

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Miguel Angel Lopez Represented By Barry E Borowitz

Movant(s):

Automotive Credit Corporation Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-19027


Wendy Ramirez


Chapter 13


#13.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 30157 Pine Needle Road, Menifee, CA 92585


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


From: 4/16/19 EH   

Docket 26

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/15/19

Tentative Ruling:

4/16/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise Court as to status of adequate protection discussions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Wendy Ramirez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Freedom Mortgage Corporation, its Represented By

Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-18557


Gema Beniukoff and Ruben Sotelo


Chapter 13


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 29070 Palm View St, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530


MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST


EH   


Docket 29

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gema Beniukoff Represented By Amanda G Billyard

Joint Debtor(s):

Ruben Sotelo Represented By

Amanda G Billyard

Movant(s):

U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Diane Weifenbach

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-16064


Michael D. Wickham and JoAnn Y. Wickham


Chapter 13


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Jaguar F-Pace Vin No.SADCK2BV5HA088646


MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.


EH   


Docket 56

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/14/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael D. Wickham Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Joint Debtor(s):

JoAnn Y. Wickham Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Movant(s):

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Represented By Alexander K Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14855


Gregory Scott Curtis


Chapter 13


#16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15677 Cactus Street Hesperia, California 92345


MOVANT: CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC


EH   


Docket 28

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/2/19

Tentative Ruling:


Debtor(s):


Party Information

P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13130


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11


#27.00 Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And

(2) Requiring Status Report EH   

Docket 3


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13127


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


#28.00 Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And

(2) Requiring Status Report EH   

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-11267


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


#29.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Causes of Action .


MOVANT: ANDRZEJ LUCZYNSKI AND Z&M TRADING, INC.


From: 4/16/19, 4/30/19 EH   

Docket 38

Tentative Ruling: 4/30/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.


On February 19, 2019, Anthony Yue Ming Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Andrzej Luczynski ("Movant") as the holder of an unsecured claim of $1,380,000 relating to a civil lawsuit.


On March 12, 2019, Movant filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for tortious exclusion of joint venturer, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and wrongful eviction. A state court hearing on Debtor’s objections to the tentative decision and proposed judgment had been scheduled for February 20, 2019, but was ultimately postponed due to the instant bankruptcy filing. It appears from the contents of the motion that Movant is only requesting to have the state court enter judgment, thereby liquidating Movant’s claim.


On April 2, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The crux of Debtor’s opposition is that the relief from the automatic stay is unnecessary because Movant’s claim has been effectively liquidated. Debtor notes that "[t]he only issue remaining is a determination of any costs and attorney’s fees, which Debtor has attempted to review for

2:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11

reasonableness in hopes that the parties could avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses regarding the same." [Dkt. No. 49, pg. 4, lines 10-12]. On April 9, 2019, Movant filed a reply, effectively arguing that Debtor’s opposition does not contain a legal basis upon which relief from stay could be denied.


When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:

  1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

  2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

  3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."

In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the

2:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu

administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


Chapter 11


Here, the Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. First, the relief requested would result in a complete resolution of the issues. Debtor’s argument that relief from stay is not necessary to resolve the issue, because the issue could be resolved through the claim objection process in bankruptcy court, is not persuasive to the Court because it does not directly address the first Curtis factor and because, presumably, the state court is in a better position to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceedings. Likewise, the second factor weighs in favor of the relief requested because the entry of a judgment in state court will not interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Debtor has not raised a plausible argument contending otherwise. A choice by Debtor to possibly incur attorney fees arguing the amount of Movant’s fees and costs incurred in the state court proceeding does not constitute interference with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, the Court finds that the tenth through twelfth Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from stay, because the state court proceeding progressed to the point where it was ready for trial, and the state court is in a better position to judge the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceeding.


The Court finds that the third through nonth Curtis factors are largely irrelevant in this situation and do not materially affect the Court’s analysis. Additionally, the Court is not inclined to find that the instant bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. Movant’s only argument made to support a bad faith finding is that the instant case was filed on the eve of the anticipated state court judgment. Noting that Debtor scheduled Movant’s claim and does not appear to be attempting to undermine the state court proceeding, the Court cannot conclude that Debtor is acting on bad faith simply because he is attempting to satisfy Movant’s claim through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.


The Court is inclined to GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY request for relief under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED

2:00 PM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Anthony Yue Ming Liu

Party Information


Chapter 11

Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Courtesy NEF Represented By Dawn M Coulson Paul M Stoddard Mark W Edelstein

2:00 PM

6:18-18339


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


#30.00 Application for Compensation First Application for Approval of Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses by Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP Attorneys for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession; Declaration That No Party Requested a Hearing on Motion of Leonard M. Shulman in Support (with proof of service) for Leonard M Shulman, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 10/2/2018 to 5/7/2019, Fee:

$419,904.35, Expenses: $14,802.16.


Also #31 EH   

Docket 258


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

Movant(s):

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-18339


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


#31.00 Application for Compensation for Stapleton Group , Financial Advisor, Period: to , Fee: $15255.00, Expenses: $160.40


Also #30 EH   

Docket 261


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#32.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Hooks v. Visiting Nurse Association, et al. Docket Number RIC 1900836 Superior Court of CA, County of Riverside


MOVANT: MICHELLE D HOOKS


EH   


Docket 368

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:

May 21, 2019


Service: Proper Opposition: No.


Debtor’s failure to oppose will be treated as consent under LBR 9013-1(f)(3). However, the Court must still come to an independent conclusion as to Ms. Hooks’ (Hooks) motion.

On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. Debtor did not list Hooks as a claim holder, as she filed her suit post-petition.


On April 25, 2019, Hooks filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for Negligence on behalf of Michelle Hooks, Negligence on behalf of Anthony Hooks, Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect, Loss of Consortium, Dependent Adult Abuse/Financial (Wrongful Advantage).

When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

  1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

  2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

  3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."

In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


Here, the Curtis factors weigh heavily in Hooks’ favor. The purpose of Curtis is to balance the harm to a debtor’s reorganization plan posed by a creditor’s pursuit of a claim in a non-bankruptcy forum with the interests of the judicial system. There is no

2:00 PM

CONT...


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11

harm to a debtor’s reorganization plans if a third party may pay the full amount of a creditor’s claim and seek indemnification from the debtor at a later date. See Ul LLC

v. Sturgeon Sevs.Int’l, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1777 at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (citing In re All Seasons Resorts, Inc., 79 B.R. 901, 904 (C.D. Cal. Bankr. 1987). Here, Hooks has stated her clear intent to solely pursue the Debtor’s liability insurance policy (Sedgewick Claims Management Services, Inc., Policy No.: 2019665200) and has also waived any deficiency in the judgment against the Debtor or the Debtor’s estate. In addition, counsel for Hooks has declared that Debtor’s insurance carrier has retained defense counsel for Debtor. When the lack of harm to Debtor’s reorganization is balanced with the clear interests of the judicial system in seeking a rapid and efficient resolution to Creditor’s pending case, the Court finds sufficient grounds to GRANT Creditor’s motion for relief from the stay to pursue pending litigation in a non-bankruptcy forum, and also GRANTS Creditor’s request to pursue Debtor’s insurance policy.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall

Movant(s):

Michelle D Hooks Represented By Tom M Allen

2:00 PM

6:17-15717


AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


Chapter 11


#33.00 Application for Compensation First Amended Application For Compensation And Reimbursement Of Final Fees And Expenses Of Lozano Law Center, Inc.; Declarations Of David Lozano, Esq. And Joe Ruvalcava Support There for David Lozano, General Counsel, Period: 7/7/2017 to 11/27/2018, Fee:

$107196.25, Expenses: $1128.12. EH   

Docket 186


Tentative Ruling:

Application: $90,837 in fees ($103,367.20 fees performed post-petition, minus

$12,530.25 remaining advanced fee payment), $1,128.12 in expenses. Opposition: No.

Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


Tentative:


On July 7, 2017, AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On October 10, 2017, the Court approved the employment application of Lozano Law Center, Inc. ("Applicant") to serve as counsel to Debtor. Debtor’s first amended disclosure statement was approved on June 6, 2018, and Debtor’s first amended plan of reorganization was confirmed on August 3, 2018. No interim fee applications have been filed by Applicant.


On November 5, 2018, Applicant filed an application for compensation, requesting allowance and payment of $119,279 in fees (less a retainer of $26,000) and $988.60 in expenses. The Court denied this application without prejudice on November 30, 2018 due to lumping and Applicant’s request for fees for work done before Debtor had filed their petition. Applicant subsequently moved the Court on December 14, 2018 to amend the October 10, 2017 employment order to

2:00 PM

CONT...


AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


Chapter 11

retroactively move their date of initial employment to pre-petition. However, this meant that Applicant was stating that Debtor owed them legal fees for work done prior to petition, meaning that Applicant was a creditor of Debtor. On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Trustee ("UST") filed their opposition to Applicant’s motion to amend the initial employment order.


In the UST’s opposition, they argued that Applicant was ineligible for any compensation, as Applicant had a prepetition claim against Debtor, due to the unpaid prepetition legal fees owed, meaning that Applicant was an interested party in the matter and thus ineligible to serve as an officer of Debtor’s estate under 11

U.S.C. § 327(a). In addition, UST also argued that Applicant’s employment disclosures were inaccurate, as Applicant had sworn in its disclosures that they were not a creditor of the estate or owed any funds by the estate.


On April 30, 2018, Applicant voluntarily dismissed their motion to modify their employment order and filed their current application for compensation and reimbursement of fees and expenses. The U.S. Trustee has not filed an opposition to the current application and has not renewed their argument that Applicant was ineligible to receive any compensation in the matter.


  1. Whether Applicant is entitled to compensation in the first place.


    The Court has discretion under 11 U.S.C. § 328(c) to independently review, and potentially deny, allowance of compensation for any professional person if, at any time during the professional’s employment under § 327, the professional was not a disinterested person, or held an interest adverse to the interest of the estate with the respect to the matter on which they were employed. The Court does agree with the UST that Applicant’s $3,829.00 claim against Debtor for legal work performed pre-petition rendered Applicant into an interested person in the matter, with their interest being adverse to the interests of the estate. However, the Court, upon review of the work performed by Applicant, and taking into account the small amount of Applicant’s pre-petition claim, the UST’s decision not to renew their objection to Applicant’s compensation, and Applicant’s waiver of the pre- petition fees, finds that Applicant’s adverse interest does not rise to the level where denial of compensation is warranted.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.

  2. Whether the compensation request is reasonable.


    Chapter 11


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), the court may award reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services. The court has an independent duty to review the fee application in the absence of objections. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(2). The court "will not indulge in extensive labor and guesswork to justify a fee for an attorney who has not done so himself." In re Taylor, 66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986).


    11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. These factors include time spent, rates charged, necessity of the service, reasonableness of the service, expertise of attorney, and comparable market rates.


    The Court first begins by nothing that Applicant’s services for Debtor appear to have been, overall, generally reasonable and necessary. Applicant’s work resulted in Debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan being confirmed, as well as the striking or reduction of several major claims against Debtor. Applicant’s rates were also reasonable, when compared to comparable market rates and the expertise of the attorneys involved. In addition, Debtor has declared their satisfaction with Applicant’s services. However, there are several problems with Applicant’s application.


    1. Deficiencies caused by a lack of a proper narrative statement.


      However, Applicant’s application has several major deficiencies, in particular, the barebones nature of the narrative statement of the services rendered during this case, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(D). While the Court recognizes that the narrative statement is intended to be brief, Applicant has failed to give any guidance to the Court as to the course of the case and the result of the services provided. This lack of detail has forced the Court to engage in extensive guesswork to justify fees, in direct contradiction to the principles set out in Taylor. Taylor, 66 B.R. 390.


      For example, Applicant requests a combined $8,051 for 27 time entries, totaling

      18.4 hours, relating to Ferguson Supplies, a major vendor for Applicant. Firstly, the only reason the Court discovered Ferguson’s importance to Applicant was

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.

      through its own initiative in analyzing prior documents filed in this matter. In addition, despite the services performed in relation to Ferguson Supplies


      Chapter 11

      approaching 10% of the total compensation request, the Court remains puzzled as to what happened over the course of these services, including the end result. This is heightened by the fact that the bulk of the fees requested are for telephonic conversations and negotiations, and the fact that Ferguson Supplies was not treated under the plan, with it being listed in Debtor’s amended schedule F solely to provide it notice. The Court, with solely the information provided before it, cannot justify the $8,051 request for services performed in regard to Ferguson Supplies at this time.


    2. Excessive time expenditure.


      In addition, the Court finds issue with the seemingly excessive time spent on some of the entries, as well as the use of attorneys to perform what appears to be clerical work in others. These entries include:


      8/11/2017: $3,825 combined request for nine hours of work, four and a half hours for Frank Alverado and David Lazano each, concerning the amending of multiple schedules, the Debtor’s statements of prior cases and financial affairs as well as their summary of assets and liabilities (ECF 48). The Court, upon review of the filing, is inclined to reduce the fees here by 33% to $2525 due to the excessive time spent.


      8/17/2017, 8/18/2017, 8/21/2017, 8/22/2017: Four time entries requesting $1,596 for four hours of work concerning the preparation and filing of Applicant’s motion to employ Applicant as a professional, as well as declaration in support thereof (ECF 58). In light of the relatively short and simple nature of the motion and declaration, the Court finds the time spent here excessive, and is inclined to reduce the fees requested by 50% to $798.


      8/28/2017, 8/29/2017: Two times entries requesting $1,424 for 3.56 hours of work for brief 3-page motion for joint check agreement, simple declaration in support thereof, and notice of hearing (ECF 59-60). In light of the excessive time spent, the Court is inclined to reduce the fees here by 33% to $940.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.

      6/8/2018: $440 request for a 2-page draft order approving amended Disclosure Statement and Plan (ECF 139). The Court is inclined to reduce the fees here by 50% to $220 due to the excessive time spent.


      6/11/2018: $880 request for attorney work preparing ballots and packages for mailing, as well as service of objection bar date (ECF 155). Upon review of the ballots, the work here appears to be of clerical nature, not that which would require the full services of an attorney. The Court is inclined to reduce the fees requested by 50% to $440.


      Chapter 11


      6/29/2018: $360 request for preparing filing 2-page proof of service for ballots, order, plan and disclosure statement (ECF 149). In view of the work required, the Court finds the time excessive and is inclined to reduce this request by $260 to

      $100.


      7/17/2018: $944 request for completing and filing the summary of completed ballots (ECF 155). In view of the excessive time spent on a simple matter, the Court is inclined to reduce this request by $744 to $200.


      The Court is inclined to reduce the fees requested by Applicant by $4,246 for excessive time spent.


    3. Severely flawed or non-fully-performed services.


      In a time entry dated 6/11/2018, Applicant requests $1,000 for a "supplemental to motion seeking approval of disclosure statement and plan with new dates" which appears to have never been filed with the Court. Instead, Applicant seems to have filed a wholly different motion for an order confirming the plan on July 17, 2018, which has been accounted for in different time entries. The Court is inclined to deny this request for fees.


      Next, Applicant requests $1,600 for four-time entries dated 10/17/2018, 11/05/2018, 11/27/2018, related to the preparation and filing of their fee applications. In light of the severely flawed nature of Applicant’s original fee application, the Court is inclined to deny this request.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.

      The Court is inclined to reduce the fees requested by Applicant by $2,600 for services that were either severely flawed, or do not appear to have been fully performed.


      In total, the Court, in view of the materials submitted before it at this time, is inclined to reduce Applicant’s fee request by $14,897 to $75,940.


    4. Compensation for expenses


    Chapter 11


    Finally, the Court takes issue with Applicant’s request for compensation of

    $1,128.12 in expenses, as they have only provided a detailed accounting for

    $562.22 in expenses. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Applicant’s expenses in the reduced amount of $562.22.


  3. Conclusion


The Court is inclined to GRANT Applicant’s request for compensation and reimbursement for fees and expenses in the reduced amount of $75,940 in fees, and $562.22 in expenses, which the Court understands is the Applicant's final fee request. The Applicant may submit to this tentative ruling, or the matter may be continued for a supplemental declaration by Applicant as to their narrative of the services they performed, and their explanation as to the time spent, or the purpose of, the entries challenged above.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. Represented By

David Lozano

Movant(s):

AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. Represented By

David Lozano David Lozano David Lozano

2:00 PM

CONT...


AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


David Lozano David Lozano


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:18-11806


Rick's Patio Inc


Chapter 11


#34.00 Motion for Entry of Final Decree and Closing of Case Also #35

EH   


Docket 117


Tentative Ruling:


5/21/2019


Opposition: None

Service: Proper


The failure of any party to oppose Debtor’s motion will be treated as consent under LBR 9013-1(f)(3).


The Court should enter a final decree closing a case when a Chapter 11 estate has been fully administered. 11 U.S.C. § 350. Full administration of a case requires there are no unresolved matters concerning the case that remain to be decided, such as motions, contested matters, or adversary proceedings. Greenfield Drive Storage Park

v. California Para-Professional Servs. (In re Greenfield Storage Park), 207 B.R. 913, 918 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997). The question then turns to whether the case has been substantially consummated, as defined under 11 U.S.C. § 1101(2). In re Wade, 991 F.2d 402, 406 fn. 2 (7th Cir. 1993). § 1101(2) defines "substantial consummation" as when:


  1. All, or substantially all of the property to be transferred under the plan has been transferred;


  2. The debtor, or the successor to the debtor, has assumed management of the debtor’s business under the plan and/or all or substantially all of the property dealt with by the plan; and

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Rick's Patio Inc


    Chapter 11

  3. The distribution under the plan has commenced.

Here, there are no remaining motions, contested matters, or adversary proceedings remaining in this case. The Court thus finds that the matter has been fully administered. In addition, the Court finds that the case has been substantially consummated. There was no property that needed to be distributed under the plan, Debtor has assumed the management of their business and control of their assets, and distributions have begun under the plan and are being carried out under the schedule.


Tentative Ruling:

The Court is inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion, GRANT request that a Final Decree be entered, and GRANT request that this Chapter 11 case be closed.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rick's Patio Inc Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Rick's Patio Inc Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:18-11806


Rick's Patio Inc


Chapter 11


#35.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report

(Post Confirmation)


From: 4/24/18, 7/31/18, 9/25/18, 12/4/18, 4/16/19


Also #34 EH   

Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rick's Patio Inc Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

11:00 AM

6:13-27610


Baleine LP


Chapter 7


#1.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 628


Tentative Ruling:

5/22/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


TRUSTEE FEES: $ 42,135.15 TRUSTEE EXPENSES: $ 1,110.08


ATTORNEY FEES: $ 209,413.38 ATTORNEY COSTS: $ 12,787.23


ACCOUNTANT FEES: $76,100.89 ACCOUNTANT COSTS: $ 152.83


COURT CHARGES: $350


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Baleine LP


Chapter 7

Baleine LP Represented By

Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay Todd A Frealy

11:00 AM

6:14-17400


J. T. Site Development, Inc.


Chapter 7


#2.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 102


Tentative Ruling:

5/22/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, Special Counsel for the Trustee and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, noting the significant reductions agreed to by General Counsel and Accountant, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 7,000 Trustee Expenses: $ 361.90


General Counsel Fees: $ 37,500 General Counsel Costs: $ 2,351.65


Special Counsel Fees: $24,221.82 Special Counsel Costs: $832.83


Accountant Fees: $12,500 Accountant Costs: $184.48


Court Charges: $3,500 Franchise Tax Board: $3,900.04

11:00 AM

CONT...


J. T. Site Development, Inc.


Chapter 7


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

J. T. Site Development, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By Frank X Ruggier

11:00 AM

6:19-10490


Shannon Kristine Koivisto


Chapter 7


#3.00 Trustee's Notice of Motion Objecting to Claimed Exemption of Debtor EH   

Docket 14

Tentative Ruling:

5/22/19

BACKGROUND


On January 21, 2019, Shannon Koivisto ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On January 24, 2019, Debtor amended Schedules B and C. On Amended Schedule B, Debtor listed a bank account with Wells Fargo holding funds in the amount of $5,107.46 (the "Funds"). On Amended Schedule C, Debtor claim the funds exempt pursuant to CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 704.070-704.080. On March 8, 2019, Debtor amended Schedules B and C again, although the amendment did not change the amount of the Funds or the legal provision upon which Debtor was claiming an exemption.


On April 26, 2019, Trustee filed an objection to exemption. Debtor did not file an opposition.


DISCUSSION



FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4001(b)(1) states, in part:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Shannon Kristine Koivisto


Chapter 7


Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a party in interest may file an objection to the list of property claimed as exempt within 30 days after the meeting of creditors held under § 341(a) is concluded or within 30 days after any amendment to list or supplemental schedules is filed, whichever is later.


Here, the meeting of creditors had not concluded by the time Trustee filed the instant objection to exemptions.


CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 704.070(b) outlines exemptions for "paid earnings." Section 704.070(a)(2) defines "paid earnings" by reference to § 706.011, while also specifying that the earnings must have been paid during the previous thirty-day period. Section

706.011 defines "earnings" as "compensation payable by an employer to an employee for personal services performed by such employee, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise." (emphasis added). Debtor’s filings in this case indicate that she is disability and did not receive income from an employer within sixty-days of the petition date. Therefore, the Court agrees with Trustee that Debtor is not eligible to exempt the Funds under § 704.070.


CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 704.080(b) provides for exemptions for "deposit accounts." Section 704.080(a)(1) defines "deposit account" for purposes of the exemption provision as "a deposit account in which payments of public benefits or social security benefits are directly deposited by the government or its agent." Trustee’s declaration asserts that Debtor testified that the Funds were from a private disability policy.

Therefore, the unrefuted evidence establishes that Debtor is ineligible to claim an exemption pursuant to § 704.080(b).


Finally, the Court deems failure to file opposition to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).

11:00 AM

CONT...


Shannon Kristine Koivisto


Chapter 7

TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection to exemptions in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Shannon Kristine Koivisto Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:13-23186


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


#4.00 CONT Motion for Turnover of Insurance Renewal Commissions From: 8/22/18, 9/12/18, 11/14/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/19

EH    


Docket 150

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/3/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard C Cox Jr Represented By Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

11:00 AM

6:13-10775


Nereo Gomez


Chapter 7


#5.00 Motion to Sell Property of the Estate Free and Clear of Liens under Section 363(f) --Motion for Order: (1) Approving Compromise; and (2) Authorizing Trustee to Sell Real Property, Free and Clear of Liens, Subject to Overbid


EH   


Docket 27

Tentative Ruling:

5/22/19

BACKGROUND


On January 15, 2013, Nereo Gomez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 29, 2013, Debtor received a discharge; the case was closed two days later.


On January 3, 2018, upon motion by UST, the Court reopened the case. On January 12, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of assets.


On April 30, 2019, Trustee filed the instant motion for approval of compromise and sale of real property (the "Motion"). The Court has not received any opposition to the Motion.


The Motion relates to certain unencumbered vacant land in Fontana (the "Property"). The Property is subject to state court litigation filed by Lawrence Schoelch (the "Buyer"). who owns adjoining land, and filed a state court complaint which included quiet title, trespass, slander/disparagement of title, and setoff or offset. Pursuant to the

11:00 AM

CONT...


Nereo Gomez


Chapter 7

motion, Trustee seeks to sell the Property, free and clear, to Buyer, and Buyer will then dismiss the pending state court litigation with prejudice.


DISCUSSION



The Court notes three different issues with the Motion.


First, the Motion does not contain any detailed evidence which would enable the Court to assess the reasonableness of the underlying compromise and sale of the Property. The only evidence relating to the fair market value of the Property is Trustee’s unsubstantiated assertion that "the Sales Price represents the fair market value for the Real Property considering the unique characteristics of the Real Property and the State Court Action that affects the marketability of the Real Property." [Dkt No. 27, pg 22, lines 18-21]. Regarding the compromise of the state court litigation, the Court has no meaningful evidence which would allow the Court to analyze the reasonableness of the compromise.


Second, while the Court is aware that the proposed sale is the result of a compromise with Buyer, the Court notes that there appears to have been minimal marketing or noticing of the sale. If the Motion had been primarily styled as a compromise motion, which included a sale, rather than a sale motion, which included a compromise, then it may have been appropriate to simply inquire whether there was a reasonable possibility of overbids. As a sale motion, however, the Motion falls materially short of the typical marketing and notice requirements.


Third, if the Court were to construe the motion as a compromise motion, the Motion fails to provide adequate notice. Specifically, the Motion utilizes the standard sale motion notice procedures, which include serving notice on all creditors, but only serving the actual motion on certain parties. An actual compromise motion, on the

11:00 AM

CONT...


Nereo Gomez


Chapter 7

other hand, is required to be served on all parties.


Pursuant to the previous two paragraphs, the Motions, a hybrid compromise-sale motion, does not satisfy the marketing requirements necessary for a sale motion nor does it satisfy the notice requirements necessary for a compromise motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nereo Gomez Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Nancy H Zamora

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Nancy H Zamora

11:00 AM

6:19-10626


Francis Garcia


Chapter 7


#6.00 Motion of United States Trustee for an Order Disgorging Fees, Assessing Damages, and Imposing Fines Against BBP Albert Knowles DBA The Bankruptcy Clinic


EH   


Docket 13

Tentative Ruling:

5/22/19

BACKGROUND


On January 25, 2019, Francis Garcia ("Debtor") filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition.


On April 15, 2019, UST filed a motion for the entry of an order disgorging fees and imposing fines against bankruptcy petition preparer Albert Knowles ("BPP") dba The Bankruptcy Clinic, requesting the disgorgement of $200, fines of $2,000 to be paid to Debtor, and fines of $500 to be paid to UST. According to UST’s motion, BPP provided unauthorized legal advice to Debtor. On May 17, 2019, BPP filed a late opposition. On May 21, 2019, UST filed a reply.


DISCUSSION


  1. BANKRUPTCY PETITION PREPARER

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Francis Garcia


    Chapter 7

    11 U.S.C. § 110(a)(1) defines "bankruptcy petition preparer" as "a person, other than an attorney for the debtor or an employee of such attorney under the direct supervision of such attorney, who prepares for compensation a document for filing." "Document for filing" is defined as "a petition or any other document prepared for filing by a debtor in a United States bankruptcy court or a United States district court in connection with a case under this title." Id.


    Here, UST has provided the declaration of Debtor stating that Knowles prepared a document for filing, and was compensated for such preparation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that BPP is an attorney, or works under the supervision of an attorney.

    Therefore, BPPis a bankruptcy petition preparer subject to the requirements of § 110.


  2. LEGAL ADVICE


    11 U.S.C. § 110(e)(2)(A) states: "[a] bankruptcy petition preparer may not offer a potential bankruptcy debtor any legal advice, including any legal advice described in subparagraph (B)." 11 U.S.C. § 110(e)(2)(B) identifies several common categories of advice that fit within the definition of legal advice in the context of § 110(e)(2).


    Here, UST states that Knowles explained the differences between bankruptcy chapters and advised the Debtor on retaining her home and car." [Dkt. No.. 13, pg. 6, lines

    2-3]. This advice fits is prohibited legal advice pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §110(e)(2)(B)(i)

    (II) and § 110(e)(2)(B)(iii).


  3. DAMAGES


    First, Section 110(i)(1) states:

    11:00 AM

    CONT... Francis Garcia Chapter 7

    (i)(1) If a bankruptcy petition preparer violates this section or commits any act

    that that the court finds to be fraudulent, unfair, or deceptive, on the motion of the debtor, trustee, United States trustee (or the bankruptcy administrator, if any), and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the bankruptcy petition preparer to pay to the debtor-

    1. the debtor’s actual damages;

    2. the greater of—

      (i) $2,000; or

      (ii) twice the amount paid by the debtor to the bankruptcy petition preparer for the preparer’s services; and


    3. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in moving for damages under this subsection.


The use of the word ‘shall’ in § 110(i)(1) indicates that the bankruptcy court has no discretion in deciding whether to impose statutory damages of $2,000 once it found a violation of § 110. First, however, the Court must determine that Ortega committed a "fraudulent, unfair, or deceptive" act. See, e.g., In re Doser, 412 F.3d 1056, 1064 (9th Cir. 1005); see also In re Kangarloo, 250 B.R. 115 (Bankr. C.D. Cal 2000). Engaging in the unauthorized practice of law has routinely been held to be a "fraudulent, unfair, or deceptive" act under the statute. See, e.g., In re Monson, 522 B.R. 340, 355 (Bankr.

D. Utah 2014) ("Offering legal advice to debtors can constitute a fraudulent, unfair or deceptive act within the context of § 110(i)(1).") (collecting cases); In re Bagley, 433

B.R. 325, 334 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2010). Furthermore, given that Knowles appeared to provide advice relating to "ride-through," an unsettled question of law, the legal advice given appears to be fairly characterized as "unfair" or "deceptive." Therefore, the Court finds that statutory damages of $2,000 are appropriate.


Second, 11 U.S.C. § 110(h)(3)(B) provides for forfeiture of fees received if a bankruptcy petition preparer fails to comply with § 110(b)-(h). The Court deems forfeiture of the $200 paid by Debtor to be appropriate in this case.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Francis Garcia


Chapter 7

Third, 11 U.S.C. § 110(l)(1) provides for a fine of up to $500 for each violation of § 110(b)-(h). For the reasons stated in the motion, in the reply, and in this tentative ruling, the Court finds an additional $500 fine to be appropriate.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, ordering disgorgement of $200 compensation to Debtor, statutory fines in the amount of $2,000, payable to Debtor, and statutory fines in the amount of $500, payable to UST.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Francis Garcia Pro Se

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

Abram Feuerstein esq

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-16964


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


#7.00 Motion to Reopen Discovery EH   

Docket 284

Tentative Ruling:

5/22/19


On April 18, 2013, Narinder Sangha ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 25, 2013, Charles Schrader ("Plaintiff") filed an adversary complaint against Defendant for non-dischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (6).


On August 12, 2013, the Court entered its first scheduling order, directing the parties to complete mediation by October 16, 2013; that deadline was ultimately continued to October 29, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the Court entered a second scheduling order, directing the parties to complete mediation by January 31, 2014. There have been no further scheduling orders in this case.


Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant has failed to: (1) serve his motion; (2) set the motion for hearing on adequate notice; or (3) include any admissible evidence in support of his motion, the Court notes that it does not appear that any discovery deadline has been imposed by the Court in this case. Therefore, there is no need to "reopen" discovery.


TENTATIVE RULING

2:00 PM

CONT...


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7


Parties to apprise the Court whether a discovery deadline has been set in this case. If no discovery deadline has been set, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

Defendant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Ryan F Thomas

Plaintiff(s):

Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-16964


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


#7.10 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:13-ap-01171. Complaint by Charles Edward Schrader against Narinder Sangha . willful and malicious injury))


From: 4/17/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

Defendant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Ryan F Thomas

Plaintiff(s):

Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-17663


Stephen Richard Morales


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01242 Forniss et al v. Morales et al


#8.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01242. Complaint by Steven John Forniss against Stephan Richard Morales, Diane Forniss Morales, Todd Turoci. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Firman, Fritz)


From: 3/6/19, 3/13/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephen Richard Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Stephan Richard Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Diane Forniss Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Diane Forniss Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Stephen Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

2:00 PM

CONT...


Stephen Richard Morales


Chapter 7

Alfonso Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-16905


Tina M Coca


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01216 Addison v. Coca


#9.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01216. Complaint by Chelsea Addison against Tina M Coca. willful and malicious injury)),(41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e))),(02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy)))


From: 1/9/19, 3/13/19 EH       

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: JUDGMENT ENTERED 5/10/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tina M Coca Represented By

Emilia N McAfee

Defendant(s):

Tina M Coca Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Chelsea Addison Represented By David C Parisi Ethan M Preston

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-13853


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01197 Itria Ventures, LLC v. Asif et al


#10.00 Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01197. Complaint by Itria Ventures, LLC against Malik Muhammad Asif, Zobia Asif. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Chekian, Michael)


From: 11/15/17, 12/6/17, 1/10/18, 6/6/18, 10/3/18, 11/7/18, 2/27/19, 4/24/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By David T Egli

Zobia Asif Represented By

David T Egli

Joint Debtor(s):

Zobia Asif Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Itria Ventures, LLC Represented By Michael F Chekian

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey

2:00 PM

6:09-37495


Sultan Fakhoury


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01067 Fakhoury et al v. HAZMAT TSDF INC.


#11.00 Motion for Enforcement of Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and to Quiet Title EH   

Docket 5


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

Defendant(s):

HAZMAT TSDF INC. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

Plaintiff(s):

Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

Trustee(s):

Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-20006


Carl J Charlot and Jacinta S Charlot


Chapter 13


#1.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


EH   


Docket 98

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 5/21/19

Matter Notes:


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13130


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11


#18.00 Motion to Consolidate Lead Case 6:19-bk-13127-MH with 6:19-bk-13130-MH EH   

Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13131


P&P HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#19.00 Motion to Consolidate Lead Case 6:19-bk-13127-MH with 6:19-bk-13131-MH EH   

Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13132


RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#20.00 Motion to Consolidate Lead Case 6:19-bk-13127-MH with 6:19-bk-13132-MH EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13133


WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#21.00 Motion to Consolidate Lead Case 6:19-bk-13127-MH with 6:19-bk-13133-MH EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

3:00 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#22.00 Motion to Approve Non-Material Modification to Its Second Amended Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan


Also #23-#24


EH   


Docket 253


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

Movant(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

3:00 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#23.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18, 1/15/19, 2/26/19, 3/19/19 Also #22-#24

EH   


Docket 5


Tentative Ruling:

12/19/2018


All parties have authorization to appear telephonically for the 12/19/2018 Status Conference.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

3:00 PM

6:18-15841


LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


Chapter 11


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan


Also #22-#23


EH   


Docket 199


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

11:00 AM

6:09-37653


Debi Jo Killian


Chapter 7


#1.00 CONT Motion for Order Confirming Personal Injury Award is Exempt and Not Part of Bankruptcy Estate


From: 1/9/19, 4/10/19 EH       

Docket 21

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/26/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Debi Jo Killian Represented By Gregory J Doan

Michael H Raichelson

Movant(s):

Debi Jo Killian Represented By Gregory J Doan

Michael H Raichelson

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By

Michelle A Marchisotto

11:00 AM

6:17-16255


Chad Priest Construction, Inc.,


Chapter 7


#2.00 Motion of Trustee for order authorizing Trustee to abandon and destroy books and records of debtor


EH   


Docket 54

Tentative Ruling:

6/5/19

BACKGROUND


On July 27, 2017, Chad Priest Construction, Inc. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition.


On April 22, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to abandon and destroy books and records. Eighteen days later, on May 10, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the motion [Dkt. No. 56]. The order contained a provision which stated that Trustee may destroy the books and records if Debtor did not pick them up within one week of the entry of the order.


On May 13, 2019, Douglas & Deanna Pearson (the "Pearsons"), plaintiffs in state court litigation in which the Debtor is a defendant, filed an opposition to the abandonment motion. The Pearsons state that they need the records for the state court litigation, that the records are not available from any other source, and that, while their attorney is listed on the proof service, they did not receive a copy of the motion prior to the order being entered. Later on May 13, 2019, Trustee set the matter for hearing.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Chad Priest Construction, Inc.,


Chapter 7

DISCUSSION



Because this Court entered an order on the motion to abandon, which is now a final order, the matter has been adjudicated, and the Court has not received any request to vacate that order. Additionally, it does not appear that the Pearsons would have any objection to the Trustee’s abandonment of the books and records; instead, the Pearsons only want the books and records to not be destroyed. On the present evidentiary record and procedural posture, this request is not properly reviewable by this Court.


TENTATIVE RULING



Parties to apprise the Court of the status of the books and records and whether they have arrived at a mutually agreeable solution.

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Chad Priest Construction, Inc., Represented By Jonathan R Preston

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert A Hessling

11:00 AM

6:18-16783


Stephanie M Graham


Chapter 7


#3.00 Motion For Sale of Property of the Estate under Section 363(b) - (2006 Mercedes Benz CLS)


Also #4 EH   

Docket 25

Tentative Ruling:

6/5/19

BACKGROUND


On August 10, 2018, Stephanie Graham ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On November 19, 2018, Debtor received a discharge. Seven unsecured claims, totaling $46,195.97, were filed in this case.


On February 26, 2019, the Court entered an order approving the application of Jack Pope as auctioneer. On May 17, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for authority to sell a 2006 Mercedes Benz CLS (the "Property") via auction. Trustee estimates that the Property will sell for $7,000 at auction.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1) allows a trustee to sell property of the estate outside of the ordinary course, after notice and a hearing. A sale pursuant to § 363(b) requires a

11:00 AM

CONT...


Stephanie M Graham


Chapter 7

demonstration that the sale has a valid business justification. In re 240 North Brand Parners, Ltd., 200 B.R. 653, 659 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996). "In approving any sale outside the ordinary course of business, the court must not only articulate a sufficient business reason for the sale, it must further find it is in the best interest of the estate,

i.e. it is fair and reasonable, that it has been given adequate marketing, that it has been negotiated and proposed in good faith, that the purchaser is proceeding in good faith, and that it is an "arms-length" transaction." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. 830, 841 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.).


Here, given that the there are claims filed in this case and that there is unexempt equity in the Property which can be realized for the benefit of creditors, a sufficient business reason for the sale has been articulated. Furthermore, because Trustee has opted to hold a public auction of the Property, it appears clear that the sale will occur in good faith and will be an "arms-length" transaction. The motion does, however, lack a description of the proposed marketing/advertisement of the auction.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion in its entirety, including waiving the Rule 6004(h) stay, conditioned upon Trustee provided an adequate explanation of the marketing/advertising of the proposed auction, as well as greater detail regarding the Property (model #, mileage, condition, etc.).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephanie M Graham Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-16783


Stephanie M Graham


Chapter 7


#4.00 Application to Employ Pope's Antiques & Auctions, Inc. as Auctioneer and Motion for Order Authorizing Sale of Personal Property of the Estate


Also #3 EH   

Docket 20

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 5/17/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephanie M Graham Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#5.00 Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion to Aprove Global Compromise Between Estate, Debtor, and Winegardner Masonry


Also #6 - #6.3


EH   


Docket 65


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#6.00 Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order: (1) Establishing Conditions and Procedures for Dismissal of Case Under 11 U.S.C. Section 707(a); and (2) Approving Payment of Creditor Claims and Administrative Fees


Also #5 - #6.3


EH   


Docket 67


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#6.10 CONT Motion by Chapter 7 Trustee for Order Approving Equity Buy Back Agreement

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 12/5/18, 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19 Also #5 - #6.3

EH   


Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#6.20 CONT Application to Employ BHHS Perrie Mundy Realty Group as Real Estate Broker / Agent Declaration of Perrie Mundy in support

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19 Also #5 - #6.3

EH   


Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#6.30 CONT Motion for Objection to Claim of Exemptions by Debtor, Julie Lynn Salazar

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 1/16/19, 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19 Also #5 - #6.2

EH   


Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-20382


Gilberto Rodriguez and Grace Rodriguez


Chapter 7


#7.00 Application to Employ Pope's Antiques & Auctions, Inc. as Auctioneer and Motion for Order Authorizing Sale of Personal Property of the Estate


Also #8 EH   

Docket 28

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 5/17/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gilberto Rodriguez Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Grace Rodriguez Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20382


Gilberto Rodriguez and Grace Rodriguez


Chapter 7


#8.00 Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order authorizing Sale of Personal Property of the Estate re: 2018 Polaris Razor XP Turbo


Also #7 EH   

Docket 33

Tentative Ruling:

6/5/19

BACKGROUND


On December 11, 2018, Gilberto & Grace Rodriguez ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On March 25, 2019, Debtors received a discharge. Twenty unsecured claims, totaling $19,451.15, were filed in this case.


On May 7, 2019, the Court entered an order approving the application of Jack Pope as auctioneer. On May 17, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for authority to sell a 2018 Polaris Razor XP Turbo (the "Property") via auction. Trustee estimates that the Property will sell for $12,000 at auction.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1) allows a trustee to sell property of the estate outside of the ordinary course, after notice and a hearing. A sale pursuant to § 363(b) requires a

11:00 AM

CONT...


Gilberto Rodriguez and Grace Rodriguez


Chapter 7

demonstration that the sale has a valid business justification. In re 240 North Brand Parners, Ltd., 200 B.R. 653, 659 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996). "In approving any sale outside the ordinary course of business, the court must not only articulate a sufficient business reason for the sale, it must further find it is in the best interest of the estate,

i.e. it is fair and reasonable, that it has been given adequate marketing, that it has been negotiated and proposed in good faith, that the purchaser is proceeding in good faith, and that it is an "arms-length" transaction." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. 830, 841 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.).


Here, given that the there are claims filed in this case and that there is unexempt equity in the Property which can be realized for the benefit of creditors, a sufficient business reason for the sale has been articulated. Furthermore, because Trustee has opted to hold a public auction of the Property, it appears clear that the sale will occur in good faith and will be an "arms-length" transaction. The motion does, however, lack a description of the proposed marketing/advertisement of the auction.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion in its entirety, including waiving the Rule 6004(h) stay, conditioned upon Trustee provided an adequate explanation of the marketing/advertising of the proposed auction.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gilberto Rodriguez Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Grace Rodriguez Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Gilberto Rodriguez and Grace Rodriguez


Chapter 7

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-13012


Issa M Musharbash


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


#9.00 CONT Pre-Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01138. Complaint to Determine Non-Dischargeability of Debt by Phillip Musharbash , Violette Musharbash against Issa M Musharbbash , Amal Musharbbash


From: 3/27/19, 4/24/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Defendant(s):

Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

Amal Musharbash Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Plaintiff(s):

Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

Violette Musharbash Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:15-14230


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01213 Pringle v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chas


#10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01213. Complaint by John Pringle against JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, National Association. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) From: 1/9/19, 3/13/19

EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/4/19 AT 2:00 PM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

Defendant(s):

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

Christopher O Rivas

Chase Bank USA, National Represented By Christopher O Rivas

Plaintiff(s):

John Pringle Represented By

Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

2:00 PM

CONT...


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:18-12807


G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01237 G Hurtado Construction, Inc. v. Catano et al


#11.00 CONT Status Conference re Adversary case 6:18-ap-01237. Complaint by G Hurtado Construction, Inc. against Juan Catano, Faustino Magana, Donahoo & Associates, PC. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). -CLAIM OBJECTIONS Nature of Suit: 14 - Recovery of money/property - other, 91- Declaratory judgment


From: 2/5/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

Defendant(s):

Juan Catano Pro Se

Faustino Magana Pro Se

Donahoo & Associates, PC Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones

2:00 PM

6:18-20756


Karl W Detlefsen


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01057 Maslar v. Detlefsen


#12.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01057. Complaint by Jennifer Maslar against Karl W Detlefsen. willful and malicious injury))


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Karl W Detlefsen Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Defendant(s):

Karl W Detlefsen Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Jennifer Maslar Represented By Sanaz S Bereliani

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-10279


Thomas Mount


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01050 Baker et al v. Mount


#13.00 Motion to set aside RE: Default Also #14

EH   


Docket 9

Tentative Ruling:

6/5/19

BACKGROUND


On January 14, 2019, Thomas Mount ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On March 14, 2019, Jonathan Baker & Baker Entertainment Group (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an adversary complaint against Defendant for non- dischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6), for denial of discharge pursuant to 1 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)(A)&(D), and (a)(5), and for unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices.


On April 23, 2019, upon the request of Plaintiffs, the Court entered Defendant’s default. Two days later, while still in default, Defendant filed an answer. On May 7, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to set aside default. On May 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.


ANALYSIS

2:00 PM

CONT...


Thomas Mount


Chapter 7

FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55(c), made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7055, states: "[t]he court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b)." The Ninth Circuit has stated that: "To determine ‘good cause,’ [under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55(c)] a court must consider three factors: (1) whether the party seeking to set aside the default engaged in culpable conduct that led to the default; (2) whether it had no meritorious defense; or (3) whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice the other party." United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).


Regarding the first factor, the culpability of the party seeking to set aside default, the Ninth Circuit has imposed a rather high threshold for the culpability which would justify this Court’s refusal to set aside default. To wit:


A defendant’s conduct is culpable if he has received actual or constructive notice of the filing of the action and intentionally failed to answer. As we have previously explained, in this context the term "intentionally" means that a movant cannot be treated as culpable simply for having made a conscious choice not to answer; rather, to treat a failure to answer as culpable, the movant must have acted with bad faith, such as an intention to take advantage of the opposing party, interfere with judicial decisionmaking, or otherwise manipulate the legal process. We have typically held that a defendant’s conduct was culpable for purposes of the good cause factors where there is no explanation of the default inconsistent with a devious, deliberate, willful, or bad faith failure to respond. As we explained in TCI Group, our approach is consistent with Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 388, 393-95 (1993), in light of which it is clear that simple carelessness is not sufficient to treat a negligent failure to reply as inexcusable, at least without a demonstration that other equitable factors, such as prejudice, weight heavily in favor of denial of the motion to set aside a default.


Id. at 1092-93 (quotations and citations omitted). The record before the Court is devoid of any evidence which would establish the culpability of Defendant under the test articulated above. While Plaintiffs argue that "Mr. Hewitt should know the consequences of his failure to answer and is presumed to be culpable," this argument must be rejected for two reasons. First, Mr. Hewitt is not the Defendant in this action.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Thomas Mount


Chapter 7

The presumption of knowledge has been applied by the Ninth Circuit when the defendant itself was a legally sophisticated party, and the Court rejects Plaintiffs attempt to extend this exception to any party that has hired an attorney. Second, assuming, arguendo, that Defendant was a legally sophisticated party, the Court is skeptical that the presumption of knowledge would automatically result in a finding of culpability, given the statement in Mesle that consciously choosing not to answer is insufficient for a finding of culpability. Finally, in the context of an adversary proceeding for non-dischargeability/objection to discharge, a delay in an answer would not normally constitute a manipulation of the legal process because the filing of the complaint precludes the entry of a discharge pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(c). In other words, the plaintiffs temporarily receive the relief requested in the complaint unless the defendants successfully defend the complaint. In such a situation, it is difficult to see how a delay by the defendants could constitute a manipulation of legal process, absent certain unique circumstances not raised here.


Regarding the second factor, whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, the Ninth Circuit has stated that:


A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment must present specific facts that would constitute a defense. But the burden on a party seeking to vacate a default judgment is not extraordinarily heavy. All that is necessary to satisfy the meritorious defense requirement is to allege sufficient facts that, if true, would constitute a defense: the question whether the factual allegation is true is not to be determined by the court when it decides the motion to set aside the default. Rather, that question would be the subject of the later litigation.


Id. at 1094. While Defendant has not put forward detailed facts to establish a meritorious defense, the low standard quoted above, combined with the fact that the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly referred to judgment by default as an "extreme circumstance," forces this Court to conclude that the standard has been satisfied.

Specifically, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant’s motion does not allege a single fact, the final paragraph of page 8 of Defendant’s motion does allege facts, albeit generally. For example, Defendant asserts that "he and the Plaintiffs fairly negotiated a contract for his services, and that the Defendant has the records and other supporting documentation to prove that the Defendant rendered services in accordance

2:00 PM

CONT...


Thomas Mount


Chapter 7

with their Agreement."


Regarding the third factor, whether Plaintiff would suffer legal prejudice, Plaintiff has not clearly raised an argument alleging that it would suffer legal prejudice. "To be prejudicial, the setting aside of a judgment must result in greater harm than simply delaying resolution of the case." TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 701 (9th Cir. 2001). "The standard is whether his ability to pursue his claim will be hindered." Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Thompson v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 95 F.3d 429, 433-34 (6th Cir. 1996) ("Second, for the setting aside of a default judgment to be considered prejudicial, it must result in more than delay. Rather, the delay must result in tangible harm such as loss of evidence, increased difficulties of discovery, or greater opportunity for fraud or collusion.").

Plaintiffs’ assertion that it "would be prejudiced by proceeding blindly into litigation with no idea whether Defendant has a meritorious defense or not" [Dkt No. 15, pg. 14] simply does not constitute legal prejudice. Defendant’s short delay in filing an answer to the complaint did not decrease Plaintiffs’ knowledge of the merits of Defendant’s defense in any manner.


Regarding Plaintiffs’ request that the setting aside of default be conditioned upon payment of reasonable attorney fees incurred as a result of the delay, the Court agrees that equitable concerns merit reimbursing Plaintiff for expenses which were proximately caused by Defendant’s delay. The Court does not, however, find the

$6,000 requested to be reasonable. The Court is inclined to award Plaintiffs $1,000, reflecting expenses (c)-(d) on pages 17-18 of docket number 15, while denying the remainder of the fees requested. The fees identified in (a)-(b) appear to be general litigation fees not clearly related to Defendant’s default. And Plaintiffs chose to litigate the instant motion rather than stipulate to the setting aside of default. As a result, it was not Defendant’s default that caused the remainder of the fees to be incurred; rather those fees were incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s litigation strategy.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, setting aside the motion conditioned on the payment by Defendant to Plaintiffs of the amount of $1,000, representing

2:00 PM

CONT...


Thomas Mount


Chapter 7

reasonable attorney fees incurred as a direct result of Defendant’s default.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Thomas Mount Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Defendant(s):

Thomas Mount Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Plaintiff(s):

Jonathan Baker Represented By Baruch C Cohen

Baker Entertainment Group Represented By Baruch C Cohen

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-10279


Thomas Mount


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01050 Baker et al v. Mount


#14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01050. Complaint by Jonathan Baker, Baker Entertainment Group against Thomas Mount. Unlawful and Fraudulent Business Practice Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. et seq.

Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)) (Cohen, Baruch)


From: 5/8/19 Also #13

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Thomas Mount Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Defendant(s):

Thomas Mount Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Plaintiff(s):

Jonathan Baker Represented By Baruch C Cohen

Baker Entertainment Group Represented By Baruch C Cohen

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Thomas Mount


Chapter 7

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:14-13931


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Motion to vacate dismissal From: 5/9/19

EH   


Docket 137

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

6/4/19

Tentative Ruling:


5/9/19


BACKGROUND



On March 28, 2014, Annie Estrada ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On August 6, 2014, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The Chapter 13 plan was subsequently modified twice.


On January 7, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for delinquency, identifying a delinquency of approximately two months. After two continuances, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, allowing Debtor a ten-day period to convert to Chapter 7 in lieu of dismissal. On April 15, 2019, Debtor filed a notice to conversion to Chapter 7; that notice, however, was withdrawn approximately two hours later. On April 22, 2019, Debtor’s case was dismissed.


On April 24, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal, asserting that Debtor had obtained funds to cure the delinquency on April 15, 2019. The funds do not appear to have been received by Trustee until the day after dismissal, but Debtor’s counsel states that he spoke with the Chapter 13 Trustee on April 15, 2019, and that

11:00 AM

CONT...


Annie Estrada


Chapter 13

Counsel was under the impression that the case was not going to be dismissed. On April 25, 2019, Trustee filed comments indicating approval, subject to proper notice being given and Debtor submitting copies of her 2018 tax returns.


On April 26, 2019, Debtor filed an amended motion to vacate dismissal.


DISCUSSION



The Court notes that Debtor has set this matter for hearing on shortened noticed without filing an application shortening time. Debtor’s notice of hearing sets an opposition deadline of April 25, 2019, the day before the notice was filed. Therefore, notice is improper.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter to May 30, 2019. Debtor to give notice of the continuance to all parties in interest.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen

Movant(s):

Annie Estrada Represented By Chris A Mullen

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Annie Estrada


Chris A Mullen


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-14084


Martin Linares and Elvia Linares


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/9/19

Also #3 EH   

Docket 86


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Martin Linares Represented By Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Elvia Linares Represented By

Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-14084


Martin Linares and Elvia Linares


Chapter 13


#3.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


Also #2 EH   

Docket 91

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 6/5/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Martin Linares Represented By Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Elvia Linares Represented By

Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

Martin Linares Represented By Craig K Streed Craig K Streed Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple Sundee M Teeple Sundee M Teeple

Elvia Linares Represented By

Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Martin Linares and Elvia Linares


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-10082


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion to Disallow Claims/Objection to claim No. 7 re Franchise Tax Board Also #5

EH   


Docket 197

Tentative Ruling:

6/6/19

BACKGROUND:


On January 5, 2017, Francisco Palacios ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On March 1, 2017, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On March 21, 2017, Franchise Tax Board ("FTB") filed a proof of claim in the amount of $9,381.23 ("Claim 7"). Claim 7 identifies $7,709.32 as secured and

$948.87 as entitled to priority. The case was dismissed on June 22, 2017; dismissal was vacated on July 10, 2017.


On July 26, 2017, Debtor filed a claim objection requesting that Claim 7 be decreased to $4,369.12. On September 28, 2017, the Court entered an order on the claim objection which provided, in part, that the claim was reduced to $4,748.13, but that all of the claim was entitled to priority [Dkt. No 126]. The order entered by the Court conflicts with Judge Jury’s notes of the hearing, which state that she was allowing the claim in the amount of $5,225.69, and that the claim was to be treated as secured.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13


The day after the order was entered, FTB filed an amended claim (the "FAC"). The FAC identified a total claim of $10,483.82, a secured portion of $7,709.32, and a priority amount of $1,830.94. Then, on June 28, 2018, FTB filed a second amended claim (the "SAC"). The SAC identified a total claim of $27,064.82, a secured portion of $7,709.32, and a priority amount of $18,411.94.


On May 2, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to the SAC. Debtor’s claim objection appears to assert that the claim of FTB should be reduced to the amount reflected in the order entered as docket number 126.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d

11:00 AM

CONT...


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13

at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


As the background section briefly illustrates, the procedural history of FTB’s claim is somewhat complicated. Judge Jury appeared to have rendered an oral decision, then entered a written order inconsistent with that ruling. The next day FTB filed the FAC, which seemed to ignore those rulings; subsequently, the SAC was filed. The following table provides a breakdown of FTB’s Claim:


Year

Claim 7

Oral Ruling

Written Order

The FAC

The SAC

2009

$2,199.87

$2,199.87

Unclear

$2,199.87

$2,199.87

2010

$2,169.25

$2,169.25

Unclear

$2,169.25

$2,169.25

2011

$2,024.86

$0

Unclear

$2,024.86

$2,024.86

2012

$1,315.34

$0

Unclear

$1,315.34

$1,315.34

2013

$1,292.90

$0

Unclear

$1,292.90

$1,292.90

11:00 AM

CONT...


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13

2014

$379.01

$379.01

Unclear

$379.01

$379.01

2015

TBD


Unclear

$1,102.59

$1,102.59

2016

TBD


Unclear

TBD

$16,581


After listening to the hearing before Judge Jury on September 25, 2017, it appears that the discrepancy between the oral ruling and the written order is a result of a mathematical error made by Judge Jury at the hearing. Judge Jury indicated that she was disallowing Claim 7 in the amounts attributed to tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, but then appears to have miscalculated the number by $477.56. It appears either the Court or Debtor corrected the number prior to the entry of the written order, but it remains unclear why the allowed portion of FTB’s claim was identified as entitled to priority, while the secured status of the claim was not addressed. While the record is imperfect, the Court is adequately able to ascertain that Judge Jury intended to disallow that portion of FTB’s claim related to tax years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Because that portion of the SAC has previously been disallowed, it is unenforceable against the estate.


Additionally, the Court is inclined to disallow that portion of Claim 7 ($16,581) related to tax year 2016 in its entirety for two reasons. First, the declaration of Debtor asserts that he had no tax liability for tax year 2016. Second, notice and service being proper, the Court is inclined to deem FTB’s failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested. The Court considers this remedy to be especially appropriate given that FTB appears to have completely ignored this Court’s previous order.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, reducing the claim of FTB to a total of

11:00 AM

CONT...


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13

$5,850.72, fully secured. (the amount reflected in docket number 126 in addition to the amount claimed for tax year 2015).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Francisco R Palacios Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Francisco R Palacios Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-10082


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

Also #4 EH   

Docket 189


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Francisco R Palacios Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-12149


Irma Dalia Cantu


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Debtor's Motion for Order Disallowing Claim no 1-1 filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 6/4/18, 8/30/18, 11/15/18 EH   


Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Irma Dalia Cantu Represented By Leonard J Cravens

Movant(s):

Irma Dalia Cantu Represented By Leonard J Cravens Leonard J Cravens

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17589


Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Motion for Turnover of Property From: 5/9/19

EH   


Docket 78

Tentative Ruling:

5/9/2019

BACKGROUND


On September 11, 2017, Ryan & Jennifer McHugh ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On November 9, 2017, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The plan has subsequently been modified twice.


On April 7, 2019, Debtors filed a motion for turnover, requesting turnover from Wexler Wallace LLP of certain funds received from a confidential personal injury settlement.


DISCUSSION



The Court notes that service appears improper for several reasons. First, it does not appear that Wexler Wallace LLP has been served with the instant motion at all.

Second, a motion for turnover is, at the least, a contested matter under FED. R. BANKR.

P. Rule 9014 and, therefore, the Rule 7004 service requirements apply. Finally, Rule

11:00 AM

CONT...


Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


Chapter 13

7001(1) requires that a motion for turnover, with certain exceptions not applicable here, requires an adversary proceeding. While this requirement may be waivable in certain circumstances, service of the underlying motion here is inadequate.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13906


Ruby Lee Frazier


Chapter 13


#8.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

Docket 59

Tentative Ruling:

06/06/19

BACKGROUND


On May 8, 2018, Ruby Lee Frazier ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On July 5, 2018, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On April 10, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to make plan payments. On April 30, 2019, Trustee filed a declaration of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss, and, on May 2, 2019, the Court dismissed the case.


On May 7, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal arguing that the case was dismissed due to attorney mistake. Among other things, Debtor’s counsel states that while Debtor’s former bankruptcy counsel was in communication with Chapter 13 trustee staff regarding a stipulation to bring the plan current, neither a written opposition nor a motion to modify was filed. Debtor was in communication with their attorney of record at the time, had agreed to make an immediate payment with the balance due to be paid very shortly thereafter, and due to a communication issue with prior counsel, Debtor believed that a stipulation to stop the dismissal was pending.


On May 8, 2019, Trustee filed comments indicating conditional approval of the

11:00 AM

CONT...

motion.


Ruby Lee Frazier


Chapter 13



DISCUSSION



Debtor relies on FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, which allows for relief from an order based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."


The legal basis for Debtor’s assertion that the dismissal order should be vacated is that Debtor’s former counsel was in communication with Trustee regarding stipulation to bring the plan current, but neither a written opposition nor a motion to modify was filed. It is well established that "an attorney’s ignorance and carelessness does not provide grounds for Rule 60(b) relief." In re Mercado, 144 B.R. 879, 886 (Bankr.

C.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1337 (7th Cir. 1972)). And the mere assertion that counsel did not fulfill its duties, but that such carelessness was inadvertent, is clearly inadequate to support Rule 60(b) relief. See, e.g., In re ACME Motors, Inc., 125 B.R. 702, 703 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1991).


"Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary." Id. Yet, in this court, a request for relief from a Chapter 13 dismissal order has become semi-ordinary. On occasion, the requests are legally sound. Here, however, the evidence provided simply indicates that Debtor’s counsel did not take any steps to effectively oppose the Trustee’s motion to dismiss.


The Seventh Circuit has stated that:


[T]he clients are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his chosen agent’s deeds. The rule is that all of the attorney’s misconduct (except in the cases where the act is outside the scope of employment or in cases of excusable neglect) becomes the problem of the client. A lawyer who inexcusably neglects his client’s obligations does

11:00 AM

CONT...


Ruby Lee Frazier

not present exceptional circumstances.


Chapter 13



Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc., 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2009). "Although attorney carelessness can [in certain circumstances] constitute ‘excusable neglect’ under Rule 60(b)(1), attorney inattentiveness to litigation is not excusable, no matter what the resulting consequences the attorney’s somnolent behavior may have on a litigant." Easley v. Kirmsee, 382 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).


Here, when the Chapter 13 trustee indicates conditional approval of the motion, when Debtor promptly moved to address the dismissal, including hiring new counsel to oversee the bankruptcy case, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion conditioned on compliance with the Trustee’s conditions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ruby Lee Frazier Represented By Michael D Franco

Movant(s):

Ruby Lee Frazier Represented By Michael D Franco

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20296


Daniel Lee Crump


Chapter 13


#9.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 1/31/19, 2/28/19, 3/14/19, 4/25/19 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20619


Deverick Brian Jackson


Chapter 13


#10.00 Motion to Disallow Claims of Arrowhead Credit Union- ATTN: 083, Claim Number10, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C Section 502


EH   


Docket 26

Tentative Ruling:

6/6/19

BACKGROUND:


On December 20, 2018, Deverick Brian Jackson ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. The claims bar date to file a proof of claim was February 28, 2019. On March 14, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On April 3, 2019, Arrowhead Credit Union ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $1,977.06 ("Claim 10"). On April 18, 2019, Trustee filed notice of additional claims. On May 2, 2019, Debtor filed a Motion to Disallow Claim 10 as late-filed.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie

11:00 AM

CONT...


Deverick Brian Jackson


Chapter 13

evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(c)(3) provides for the creation of a claim bar deadline, and FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3002(c) provides certain exceptions to the rule that claims must be timely filed. Creditor has not argued that any of these exceptions apply. The Court notes that recent amendments resulted in the creation of FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3002(c)(6)(A). While case law on the recent amendment is sparse, it does not appear that the amendment is applicable to this situation. See 9 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 3002.03[7] (16th ed. 2017) ("A creditor may not argue under Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) that

11:00 AM

CONT...


Deverick Brian Jackson


Chapter 13

the notice was insufficient for reasons other than those caused by the untimely filing of the list of creditors.").


"[T]he Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that the deadline to file a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 proceeding is ‘rigid,’ and the bankruptcy court lacks equitable power to extent this deadline after the fact." In re Barker, 839 F.3d 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2016). "By virtue of Rule 9006(b)(3), a bankruptcy court does not have discretion to enlarge the time periods fixed by Rule 3002(c) nor permit an untimely claim when none of Rule 3002(c)’s five exceptions is applicable." In re Hayes, 327 B.R. 453, 458 (Bankr.

C.D. Cal. 2005) (footnote omitted); see also In re Edelman, 237 B.R. 146, 152 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999). Here, none of Rule 3002(c)’s exceptions apply.


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed until a party in interest objects. Debtor has objected to Creditor’s proof of claim on the grounds that Claim 10 was filed after the claim bar deadline. The FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3002(c) exceptions do not apply. Therefore, Claim 10 is deemed unenforceable.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISALLOWING Claim 10.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Deverick Brian Jackson Represented By Steven A Alpert

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Deverick Brian Jackson


Chapter 13

Deverick Brian Jackson Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11757


Virginia Ann Bennett


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Motion for Relief from Stay MOVANT: CAPITAL AUTO FINANCIAL

From: 4/16/19, 5/23/19 EH   

Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Virginia Ann Bennett Represented By Lionel E Giron

Crystle Jane Lindsey

Movant(s):

Capital Auto Financial Represented By Gennady L Lebedev

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11911


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13


#12.00 Motion for Setting Property Value re 2011 Nissan Murano Also #13 & #14

EH   


Docket 29

Tentative Ruling:

6/6/19

BACKGROUND


On March 9, 2019, Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2011 Nissan Murano (the "Property"). CarMax Business Services, LLC ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property. On March 12, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $17,541.38, identifying $17,541.38 as secured by the Property.


On February 18, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to value the Property. Debtor asserts that the Property should be valued at $10,625.


DISCUSSION



One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13

In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


Presently, the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge." Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a N.A.D.A. Guide report identifying the clean retail value of the Property. Therefore, the Court will GRANT the Motion to Value the Nissan Murano.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion in its entirety, and value the Property at

$10,625, with the remainder treated as general unsecured debt.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11911


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13


#13.00 Motion for Setting Property Value re 2013 Ford Escape Also #12 & #14

EH   


Docket 30

Tentative Ruling:

06/06/2019

BACKGROUND


On March 9, 2019, Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2013 Ford Escape (the "Property"). Capital One Auto Finance ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property.


On April 23, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to value the Property. Debtors assert that the Property should be valued at $11,025.00. On May 20, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim for $16,588.98 ("Claim 25"), identifying $7,977 as secured.


DISCUSSION



One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13

can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


Presently, the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge." Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a N.A.D.A report identifying the clean retail value of the 2013 Ford Escape, and the Court deems the non-opposition to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of valuing the Property at

$11,025, with the remainder treated as general unsecured.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11911


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13


#14.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 5/23/19

Also #12 & #13 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11992


Pablo Cornejo


Chapter 13


#15.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 5/23/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Pablo Cornejo Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12169


Jason G. Brodowski and Lithia A. Brodowski


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jason G. Brodowski Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Lithia A. Brodowski Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12186


Roshanda Jeannen Dodds


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Roshanda Jeannen Dodds Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12195


Jerold Ray Hoxie


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 21


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jerold Ray Hoxie Represented By Suzette Douglas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12218


Keionna Marie Pitts


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Keionna Marie Pitts Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12219


Michael Lawrence Ricks and Debra Jean Ricks


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Lawrence Ricks Represented By

Richard Komisars III

Joint Debtor(s):

Debra Jean Ricks Represented By

Richard Komisars III

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12224


Martin Warren


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Martin Warren Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12231


Jose Carlos Pina


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Carlos Pina Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12264


Abelino Cervantes


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Abelino Cervantes Represented By Khushwant Sean Singh

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12281


Edward Lamont Samuels


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 21


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Edward Lamont Samuels Represented By Alon Darvish

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12323


Isela Irma Vega


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Isela Irma Vega Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12324


Jose Cruz Valenzuela, Jr. and Ariana Marlene Gonzalez


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Cruz Valenzuela Jr. Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Ariana Marlene Gonzalez Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12361


Ethel Ntom Odimegwu


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    


Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ethel Ntom Odimegwu Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12374


Irene Abreu-Alba


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Irene Abreu-Alba Represented By Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12375


Terry L. Hogle


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Terry L. Hogle Represented By Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12390


Walter Raymond Ruff and Jennifer Marie Ruff


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Walter Raymond Ruff Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Marie Ruff Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12396


Anthony Tyrone Moore


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Anthony Tyrone Moore Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12398


Jerry Melendrez and Laura Therese Melendrez


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jerry Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Laura Therese Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12402


Paul Sheldon Kirkwood


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Paul Sheldon Kirkwood Represented By Michael E Clark

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12428


Elsa Firra Comulada


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 18


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Elsa Firra Comulada Represented By Matthew D Resnik

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12439


Caleb Gervin and Ashley Gervin


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Caleb Gervin Represented By

Christopher Hewitt

Joint Debtor(s):

Ashley Gervin Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12463


LaKeche Marie Haley-Mays


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/15/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

LaKeche Marie Haley-Mays Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12467


Sheila Marie Malone


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 10

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/15/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sheila Marie Malone Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12482


Ramon Leo Delgado


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ramon Leo Delgado Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12483


Hector Jesus Sevilla


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Hector Jesus Sevilla Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12493


Angel Victoriano and Maura Guzman


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Angel Victoriano Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Maura Guzman Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12494


Jesus Escamilla, Jr


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jesus Escamilla Jr Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12502


David R Cook


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 3


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David R Cook Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12516


Jacob Maxwell Stroud


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/5/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jacob Maxwell Stroud Represented By Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12626


Diana June Tucker


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Diana June Tucker Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13334


Rafael Gonzalez and Sonia Cardenas


Chapter 13


#45.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH   

Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

Joint Debtor(s):

Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

Movant(s):

Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14141


Rafael Gonzalez and Sonia Cardenas


Chapter 13


#45.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate


MOVANT: RAFAEL GONZALEZ AND SONIA CARDENAS


Advanced From: 6/11/19 EH       

Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

Joint Debtor(s):

Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

Movant(s):

Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:10-20626


Irma Cantu


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01057 Cantu v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al


#46.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01057. Complaint by Irma Cantu against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Cravens, Leonard)


From: 11/15/18 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Irma Cantu Represented By

Leonard J Cravens

Defendant(s):

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Adam N Barasch

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Adam N Barasch

Plaintiff(s):

Irma Cantu Represented By

Leonard J Cravens

Trustee(s):

Rod (MJ) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-10793


Robert Anthony Maruffo and Allison Marie Maruffo


Chapter 13


#47.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/23/19

EH   


Docket 82

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

6/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert Anthony Maruffo Represented By Carey C Pickford

Joint Debtor(s):

Allison Marie Maruffo Represented By Carey C Pickford

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-24084


Michael Lee Barnes and Belinda Ann Barnes


Chapter 13


#48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 143


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Lee Barnes Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Belinda Ann Barnes Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-10488


Jose L Rangel and Rosa M Rangel


Chapter 13


#49.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 141


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose L Rangel Represented By

Lisa H Robinson John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosa M Rangel Represented By Lisa H Robinson John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-17561


Cresencio Ramirez Ramirez and Maria Olga Ramirez


Chapter 13


#50.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/23/19

EH   


Docket 153


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cresencio Ramirez Ramirez Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Olga Ramirez Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-10066


Saul Lara Sanchez


Chapter 13


#51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 72


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Saul Lara Sanchez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-17536


Gracey Hunter


Chapter 7


#52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 98

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON

6/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gracey Hunter Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-10811


Manuel Huertas


Chapter 13


#53.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19, 5/9/19

EH   


Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Manuel Huertas Represented By Marcella Lucente

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11760


Jose Tinoco and Monica Tinoco


Chapter 13


#54.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19, 5/23/19

EH   


Docket 29

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

6/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Tinoco Represented By

Juanita V Miller

Joint Debtor(s):

Monica Tinoco Represented By Juanita V Miller

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11901


Jose Camacho Payan and Erika Vanessa Payan


Chapter 13


#55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

EH   


Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Camacho Payan Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Joint Debtor(s):

Erika Vanessa Payan Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17189


Earma Denise Young Washington and Marvin Ray


Chapter 13


#56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 79


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Earma Denise Young Washington Represented By

Brad Weil

Joint Debtor(s):

Marvin Ray Washington Represented By Brad Weil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17469


Annette Culpepper


Chapter 13


#57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 48

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/6/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annette Culpepper Represented By Nathan Fransen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10740


Karin Olaya


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 79


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Karin Olaya Represented By

Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11081


Stephen Daniel Payan


Chapter 13


#59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 54


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephen Daniel Payan Represented By Paul J Kurtzhall

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12822


Cynthia Miller


Chapter 13


#60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 48

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

6/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cynthia Miller Represented By Richard L Barrett

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13172


Michelle Cadena Quinn


Chapter 13


#61.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/9/19

EH   


Docket 65


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michelle Cadena Quinn Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14277


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13


#62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15598


Stephen Mark Caldwell


Chapter 13


#63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephen Mark Caldwell Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16694


Cynthia M Gonzalez and Guadalupe Siddiqui


Chapter 13


#64.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19, 5/23/19

EH   


Docket 40

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 5/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cynthia M Gonzalez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Guadalupe Siddiqui Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17676


Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez


Chapter 13


#65.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 3/28/19, 4/25/19, 5/23/19

EH   


Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17700


Nick Caropino


Chapter 13


#66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nick Caropino Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17735


Carlos Garcia


Chapter 13


#67.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19

EH   


Docket 34


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carlos Garcia Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-19093


Yolanda Williams


Chapter 13


#68.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Yolanda Williams Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20232


Diana Marie Perrone


Chapter 13


#69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Diana Marie Perrone Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20547


Tawnie L Vanderham


Chapter 13


#70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 46

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

6/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tawnie L Vanderham Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15772


Annette Leshon Rudd


Chapter 13


#71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 70


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annette Leshon Rudd Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

9:30 AM

6:18-20003


LC Stahl LLC


Chapter 11


#1.00 CONT for Evidentiary Hearing re Motion for Relief from Stay Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. Section 362 (with supporting declarations) (Real Property)


MOVANT: LOAN FUNDER LLC, SERIES 1829


From: 2/26/19, 3/5/19, 4/10/19, 5/7/19, 6/3/19 EH   

Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LC Stahl LLC Represented By

Stuart J Wald

Movant(s):

Loan Funder LLC, Series 1829 Represented By Jeffrey N Brown

2:00 PM

6:18-17730


Sally Jeanne Way


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01238 Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation


#2.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01238. Complaint by Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation. (Charge To Estate). Verified Complaint for: 1) Quiet Title; 2) Cancellation of Instrument; and 3) Declaratory Relief Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Iskander, Brandon)


From: 2/6/19, 3/13/19, 4/10/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 6/12/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sally Jeanne Way Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Brandon J Iskander

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

10:00 AM

6:17-18270


Linnea Rennee-Chrismon Allen


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11623 Primavera Road, Pinon Hills, CA 92372


MOVANT: SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC


From: 5/28/19 EH   

Docket 34


Tentative Ruling:

5/28/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT movant ability to proceed under applicable nonbankruptcy law to enforce its remedies. GRANT waiver of 14-day stay prescribed by FRBP 4001(a)(3). GRANT defining Debtor as borrower in 2920.5(c)(2)(C).


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Linnea Rennee-Chrismon Allen Represented By Scott Kosner

Movant(s):

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING Represented By

Mukta Suri Nancy L Lee

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Linnea Rennee-Chrismon Allen


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-20487


Ann Marie Smith


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6140 Sard St, Alta Loma, CA 91701


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.


EH   


Docket 85


Tentative Ruling:

6/11/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from § 1301(a) stay. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay.

GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee Jonetta A Graves

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:17-20489


Michael S McGowan and Brandy L McGowan


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 HONDA PILOT, VIN: 5FNY F5H5 9GB0 35100


MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


From: 5/28/19 EH   

Docket 49

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 5/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

5/28/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT request to proceed under applicable nonbankruptcy law to enforce its remedies. GRANT termination of co-debtor stay of 11 U.S.C. § 1201(a) or § 1301(a). GRANT waiver of 14-day stay prescribed by FRBP 4001(a)(3). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael S McGowan Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Joint Debtor(s):

Brandy L McGowan Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Movant(s):


Michael S McGowan and Brandy L McGowan

Terrence Fantauzzi


Chapter 13

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-14388


Jesus Pabloff and Virginia Pabloff


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 Honda Civic, VIN: 2HGFB2F54CH591339


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


EH   


Docket 69


Tentative Ruling:

6/11/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Pabloff Represented By

Tom A Moore

Joint Debtor(s):

Virginia Pabloff Represented By Tom A Moore

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jesus Pabloff and Virginia Pabloff


Jennifer H Wang


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-17597


David Meisland


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 26818 Montseratt Court, Murrieta, California 92563


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


From: 3/26/19, 4/30/19, 5/28/19 EH   

Docket 39

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

6/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

3/26/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Meisland Represented By Nima S Vokshori

Movant(s):

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL Represented By

Sean C Ferry

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


David Meisland


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:18-18557


Gema Beniukoff and Ruben Sotelo


Chapter 13


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 FORD FIESTA, VIN #: 3FADP4EJ7FM176223


MOVANT: REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

6/11/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to confirm that Debtors have cured all arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gema Beniukoff Represented By Amanda G Billyard

Joint Debtor(s):

Ruben Sotelo Represented By

Amanda G Billyard

Movant(s):

REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE Represented By

Michael D Vanlochem

10:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Gema Beniukoff and Ruben Sotelo


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11515


James Ralph Albano


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 36651 Indian Knoll Road, Temecula, CA 92592


MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


CASE DISMISSED 5/22/19


EH   


Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

James Ralph Albano Represented By Derik N Lewis

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

Angie M Marth

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-13322


Karla E. Ramirez


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Dodger Charger


MOVANT: GATEWAY ONE LENDING & FINANCE


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

6/11/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Karla E. Ramirez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Movant(s):

Gateway One Lending & Finance Represented By

Karel G Rocha

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-13415


Diane Tucker


Chapter 13


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2078 W 99TH ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90047-4003


MOVANT: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 21


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Diane Tucker Pro Se

Movant(s):

Wilmington Trust, National Represented By Darlene C Vigil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-13450


Anthony Joseph Scalero and Tiffany Rene Veloz


Chapter 7


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Dodge Charger VIN 2C3CDXBG8DH625904


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. DBA CHRYSLER CAPITAL


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

6/11/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

  1. and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Anthony Joseph Scalero Represented By Sundee M Teeple

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Tiffany Rene Veloz Represented By Sundee M Teeple

    Movant(s):

    Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Anthony Joseph Scalero and Tiffany Rene Veloz

    Jennifer H Wang


    Chapter 7

    Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13774


    Ignacio Alejandro Ponce and Maria D Martinez De Ponce


    Chapter 7


    #11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Nissan Sentra


    MOVANT: THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION


    EH   


    Docket 10


    Tentative Ruling:

    6/11/2019


    Service is Improper Opposition: None


    Notwithstanding the failure to serve Debtors’ Counsel, because Debtors have indicated that they intend to surrender the subject collateral, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ignacio Alejandro Ponce Represented By

    James Geoffrey Beirne

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Maria D Martinez De Ponce Represented By

    James Geoffrey Beirne

    Movant(s):

    Golden 1 Credit Union Represented By Mirco J Haag

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Ignacio Alejandro Ponce and Maria D Martinez De Ponce


    Chapter 7

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14141


    Rafael Gonzalez and Sonia Cardenas


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate


    MOVANT: RAFAEL GONZALEZ AND SONIA CARDENAS


    EH       


    Docket 12

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVANCED TO 6/6/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

    Movant(s):

    Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

    Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14325


    Martin Ontiveros


    Chapter 13


    #13.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 39628 Garin Drive, Murrieta, CA 92562


    MOVANT: MARTIN ONTIVEROS


    From: 6/4/19 EH       

    Docket 8

    Tentative Ruling:

    TENTATIVE RULING:


    6/4/2019


    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    Debtor has not presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that this case was not filed in good faith. Specifically, the motion lacks detailed evidence regarding the change in personal financial circumstances. The Court is inclined to DENY Movant’s request for an imposition of the automatic stay.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Debtor’s attorney Allan Cate to personally appear.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

    Movant(s):

    Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Martin Ontiveros


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11757


    Virginia Ann Bennett


    Chapter 13


    #13.10 CONT Motion for Relief from Stay MOVANT: CAPITAL AUTO FINANCIAL

    From: 4/16/19, 5/23/19, 6/6/19 EH   

    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Virginia Ann Bennett Represented By Lionel E Giron

    Crystle Jane Lindsey

    Movant(s):

    Capital Auto Financial Represented By Gennady L Lebedev

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10155


    Jose De Jesus Hernandez


    Chapter 11


    #14.00 CONT Motion for approval of the adequecy of the chapter 11 disclosure statement


    From: 1/29/19, 3/5/19 Also #15

    EH   


    Docket 111

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/20/19 AT 2:00 PM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

    Eric Bensamochan

    Movant(s):

    Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

    Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10155


    Jose De Jesus Hernandez


    Chapter 11


    #15.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 1/29/19, 3/5/19


    Also #14 EH   

    Docket 96

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/20/19 AT 2:00 PM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

    Eric Bensamochan

    2:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #16.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Causes of Action .


    MOVANT: ANDRZEJ LUCZYNSKI AND Z&M TRADING, INC.


    From: 4/16/19, 4/30/19, 5/21/19 EH   

    Docket 38

    Tentative Ruling: 4/30/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.


    On February 19, 2019, Anthony Yue Ming Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Andrzej Luczynski ("Movant") as the holder of an unsecured claim of $1,380,000 relating to a civil lawsuit.


    On March 12, 2019, Movant filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for tortious exclusion of joint venturer, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and wrongful eviction. A state court hearing on Debtor’s objections to the tentative decision and proposed judgment had been scheduled for February 20, 2019, but was ultimately postponed due to the instant bankruptcy filing. It appears from the contents of the motion that Movant is only requesting to have the state court enter judgment, thereby liquidating Movant’s claim.


    On April 2, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The crux of Debtor’s opposition is that the relief from the automatic stay is unnecessary because Movant’s claim has been effectively liquidated. Debtor notes that "[t]he only issue remaining is a determination of any costs and attorney’s fees, which Debtor has attempted to review for

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    reasonableness in hopes that the parties could avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses regarding the same." [Dkt. No. 49, pg. 4, lines 10-12]. On April 9, 2019, Movant filed a reply, effectively arguing that Debtor’s opposition does not contain a legal basis upon which relief from stay could be denied.


    When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:

    1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

    2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

    3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."

In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the

2:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu

administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


Chapter 11


Here, the Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. First, the relief requested would result in a complete resolution of the issues. Debtor’s argument that relief from stay is not necessary to resolve the issue, because the issue could be resolved through the claim objection process in bankruptcy court, is not persuasive to the Court because it does not directly address the first Curtis factor and because, presumably, the state court is in a better position to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceedings. Likewise, the second factor weighs in favor of the relief requested because the entry of a judgment in state court will not interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Debtor has not raised a plausible argument contending otherwise. A choice by Debtor to possibly incur attorney fees arguing the amount of Movant’s fees and costs incurred in the state court proceeding does not constitute interference with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, the Court finds that the tenth through twelfth Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from stay, because the state court proceeding progressed to the point where it was ready for trial, and the state court is in a better position to judge the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceeding.


The Court finds that the third through nonth Curtis factors are largely irrelevant in this situation and do not materially affect the Court’s analysis. Additionally, the Court is not inclined to find that the instant bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. Movant’s only argument made to support a bad faith finding is that the instant case was filed on the eve of the anticipated state court judgment. Noting that Debtor scheduled Movant’s claim and does not appear to be attempting to undermine the state court proceeding, the Court cannot conclude that Debtor is acting on bad faith simply because he is attempting to satisfy Movant’s claim through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.


The Court is inclined to GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY request for relief under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED

2:00 PM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Anthony Yue Ming Liu

Party Information


Chapter 11

Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Courtesy NEF Represented By Dawn M Coulson Paul M Stoddard Mark W Edelstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13127


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


#17.00 CONT Motion to Compel Assumption or Rejection of Defaulted Unexpired Lease of Personal Property; for Provision of Adequate Protection and Maintenance of 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(5) Payments; and for Relief from Stay in Event of Rejection of Lease


From: 6/4/19 Also #18

EH   


Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

Randall P Mroczynski

2:00 PM

6:19-13127


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


#18.00 CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


From: 4/29/19 Also #17

EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13130


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11


#19.00 CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


From: 4/29/19 EH   

Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13132


RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#20.00 CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


From: 4/29/19 EH   

Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13133


WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#21.00 CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


From: 4/29/19 EH   

Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

10:00 AM

6:19-12057


Hazel Mayorga


Chapter 7


#1.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and American Honda Finance Corporation re 2017 Honda Civic


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Hazel Mayorga Represented By Marlin Branstetter

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-12021


Manuel Rigoberto Lopez


Chapter 7


#2.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Americredit Financial Services, Inc. Dba GM Financial re 2018 Chevrolet Malibu


EH   


Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Manuel Rigoberto Lopez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-11926


Amber Michelle Perez


Chapter 7


#3.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Santander Consumer USA Inc. re 19 Hyundai Elantra


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Amber Michelle Perez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10985


Antonio Cuen


Chapter 7


#4.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and OneMain Financial re 2012 Chevy Malibu


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Antonio Cuen Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-10782


Michael Christopher VonPoppen


Chapter 7


#5.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Bank of America, N.A. re 2013 KIA Optimas #3957


EH   


Docket 16


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Christopher VonPoppen Represented By

Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-11594


Jorge Alberto Guzman Murillo and Wendy Marisol


Chapter 7


#6.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 33

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING


6/12/2019


Opposition: No Service: Proper


The applications for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, and the application of Trustee, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 2,250.00 Trustee Expenses: $ 123.76


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jorge Alberto Guzman Murillo Represented By Andrew Nguyen

Joint Debtor(s):

Wendy Marisol Guzman Represented By Andrew Nguyen

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Jorge Alberto Guzman Murillo and Wendy Marisol


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17431


James Michael Gorman


Chapter 7


#7.00 Motion For The Entry Of An Order, To The Extent Necessary, Extending The Deadline For The Insurance Commissioner Of The State Of Delaware, In His Capacity As The Receiver Of Ullico Casualty Company, To File A Complaint Objecting To The Dischargeability Of Debt Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), Or (6)


EH       


Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

James Michael Gorman Represented By Timothy W Combs

Movant(s):

Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Represented By Todd M Arnold

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12408


INNOCENTI, LLC


Chapter 7


#8.00 Amended Motion For Recission and Sanctions against First American Title Insurance Company and BCAT 2016-18 TT for willfull violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(k)(1)


EH         


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

INNOCENTI, LLC Represented By Rhonda Walker

Movant(s):

INNOCENTI, LLC Represented By Rhonda Walker Rhonda Walker Rhonda Walker

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7


#9.00 CONT Objection to Claim #17 by Revere Financial Corporation

(Holding date)


From: 10/1/14, 11/5/14, 12/3/14, 12/15/14, 1/28/15, 4/15/15, 7/22/15, 9/23/15, 10/21/15, 11/18/15, 12/16/15, 1/13/16, 3/2/16, 5/4/16, 6/1/16, 9/28/16, 11/16/16,

2/1/17, 2/16/17, 5/3/17, 6/14/17, 6/28/17, 9/20/17, 3/21/18, 6/27/18, 12/19/18,

3/27/19, 5/8/19


EH      


Docket 333

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/31/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

11:00 AM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7


#10.00 CONT Status Conference re: Second Joint Motion and Moving Memorandum by Chapter 7 Trustee and Revere Financial Corporation for Order Approving Settlement between Chapter 7 Trustee and Revere Financial Corporation


From: 8/22/18, 1/16/19, 3/27/19 EH    

Docket 521


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Movant(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:18-17730


Sally Jeanne Way


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01238 Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation


#11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01238. Complaint by Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee against Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware corporation. (Charge To Estate). Verified Complaint for: 1) Quiet Title; 2) Cancellation of Instrument; and 3) Declaratory Relief Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Iskander, Brandon)


From: 2/6/19, 3/13/19, 4/10/19, 6/10/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER DISMISSING ADVERSARY FILED 4/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sally Jeanne Way Represented By Summer M Shaw

Defendant(s):

Alohraw Studios, Inc., a Delaware Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Charles W. Daff, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Brandon J Iskander

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01057 Whitson et al v. Bastorous


#12.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Adversary case 6:18-ap-01057. Complaint by Blaine Whitson, Susan Whitson, Union Home Loan Profit Sharing Plan, Gurpaljit Deoll, Benny Winefeld, RM Holdings, LLC against Mark Bastorous. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 5/9/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 2/27/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

Blaine Whitson Represented By Benjamin Taylor

Susan Whitson Represented By Benjamin Taylor

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Union Home Loan Profit Sharing Represented By

Benjamin Taylor

Gurpaljit Deoll Represented By Benjamin Taylor

Benny Winefeld Represented By Benjamin Taylor

RM Holdings, LLC Represented By Benjamin Taylor

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01061 Farah v. Bastorous et al


#13.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [45] Amended Complaint THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR NONDISCHARGEABILITY BASED ON 11 USC § 523(a)(2)

  1. AND FOR FRAUD, DECEIT AND/OR FALSE PROMISE by Wayne W Suojanen on behalf of Mina Farah against Mark Bastorous. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:18-ap-01061. Complaint by Mina Farah, Mark Bastorous against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(01 (Determination of removed claim or cause)) filed by Plaintiff Mina Farah). (Suojanen, Wayne)


From: 3/27/19 EH   

Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Thomas F Nowland


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

Mina Farah Pro Se

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01062 Khalil v. Bastorous et al


#14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [43] Amended Complaint THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR NONDISCHARGEABILITY BASED ON 11 USC § 523(a)(2)

  1. AND FOR FRAUD, DECEIT AND/OR FALSE PROMISE by Wayne W Suojanen on behalf of Anis Khalil against Mark Bastorous. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:18-ap-01062. Complaint by Anis Khalil against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) filed by Plaintiff Anis Khalil). (Suojanen, Wayne)


    From: 3/27/19 EH   

    Docket 43


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Defendant(s):

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Plaintiff(s):

    Anis Khalil Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20092


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01063 Chen et al v. Bastorous et al


    #15.00 CONT Status Conference re Amended Complaint by Douglas L Mahaffey on behalf of Chienan Chen, Chun-Wu Li against Bernadette Shenouda, 3 Columnar Ladera LLC, Mike Bareh, Mark Bastorous, MB Capital Group LLC. (Dismissed as to Bernadette Shenouda 1/2/19)


    From: 5/9/18, 6/6/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 2/27/19 EH   

    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Defendant(s):

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    3 Columnar Ladera LLC Pro Se

    Mike Bareh Represented By

    Mirco J Haag Jason E Goldstein

    MB Capital Group LLC Pro Se

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Plaintiff(s):

    Chienan Chen Represented By Douglas L Mahaffey

    Chun-Wu Li Represented By

    Douglas L Mahaffey

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20092


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01064 Gerges et al v. Bastorous et al


    #16.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Adversary case 6:18-ap-01064. Complaint by Mona Gerges, Rafet Gerges, St. Mary Properties, LLC against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. False pretenses, False representation, actual fraud, 67- Dischargeability - 523(a)(4); Fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), Willful and malicious injury


    From: 5/9/18, 5/16/18, 7/11/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 11/14/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/10/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Defendant(s):

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Plaintiff(s):

    Mona Gerges Represented By

    Louis J Esbin

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Rafat Gerges Represented By

    Louis J Esbin

    St. Mary Properties, LLC Represented By Louis J Esbin

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20092


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01174 Pringle Ch 7 Trustee v. Shenouda et al


    #17.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01174. Complaint by John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee against Violete Shenouda, Anwar Wagdy. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Complaint: (1) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550; (2) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550; (3) To Avoid Transfer Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 544(a)(3); (4) To Preserve Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 551; (5) For Declaratory Relief; (6) For Imposition of Resulting Trust; (7) For Imposition of Constructive Trust; and (8) For Attorneys' Fees and Costs Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Goodrich, David)


    From: 10/31/18, 2/27/19 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Defendant(s):

    Violete Shenouda Represented By John J Lewis

    Anwar Wagdy Represented By John J Lewis

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Mark Bastorous


    Chapter 7

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

    Plaintiff(s):

    John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

    2:00 PM

    6:17-18295


    Eastern Legends CW


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01222 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bobby Lee Associates, LLC


    #18.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01222. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Bobby Lee Associates, LLC. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Polis, Thomas)


    From: 1/16/19, 4/17/19 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

    Defendant(s):

    Bobby Lee Associates, LLC Represented By Keith S Knochel

    Plaintiff(s):

    Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Thomas J Polis

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

    2:00 PM

    6:17-18295


    Eastern Legends CW


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01227 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Wang


    #19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01227. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Ming Chung Wang. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


    From: 1/16/19, 4/12/19 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

    Defendant(s):

    Ming Chung Wang Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Thomas J Polis

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

    2:00 PM

    6:17-18295


    Eastern Legends CW


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01228 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Via Cerro Partners, LP


    #20.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01228. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Via Cerro Partners, LP. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


    From: 1/16/19 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

    Defendant(s):

    Via Cerro Partners, LP Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

    Thomas J Polis

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11


    #21.00 CONT First Omnibus Objection of Debtor-In-Possession Allied Injury Management, Inc. Seeking Disallowance of Certain Proofs of Claim (Holding Date)


    From: 11/8/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 3/7/17,4/4/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

    11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19


    Also #22 EH   

    Docket 83


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Movant(s):

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11


    #22.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 6/7/16, 8/30/16, 9/14/16, 10/20/16, 10/25/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

    11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19


    Also #21 EH   

    Docket 7


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:16-01225 Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC v. Allied Injury Management,


    #23.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC against Allied Injury Management, Inc., John C. Larson. 02 - Other e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy

    HOLDING DATE


    From: 11/1/16, 12/6/16, 1/31/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 10/3/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19,

    4/10/19


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    John C. Larson Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    Cambridge Medical Funding Group Represented By

    Kenneth Hennesay

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


    Chapter 11

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:16-01279 Allied Injury Management, Inc. v. One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group


    #24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01279. Complaint by Allied Injury Management, Inc. against One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group & Therapy, Inc., One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group, Inc., Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Group, Inc.. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; and (3) Unjust Enrichment Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


    From: 1/24/17, 3/7/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

    Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

    One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

    Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

    Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Represented By

    Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Plaintiff(s):

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01109 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Titanium Resource Company,


    #25.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 - preference,13 Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


    From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a Represented By

    Alan W Forsley

    Plaintiff(s):

    David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


    Chapter 11

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01110 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Larson, D.C., an individual


    #26.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against John Larson, D.C., an individual. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers, Avoidance of Improper Distributions, and Unjust Enrichment and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13- Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


    From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    John Larson, D.C., an individual Represented By

    Alan W Forsley

    Plaintiff(s):

    David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


    Chapter 11

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


    #27.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01111. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Werth, Steven)


    From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19


    Also #28 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Mark S Horoupian


    Chapter 11

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


    #28.00 CONT Status Conference RE: 3rd Party Complaint [4] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, and Third-Party Claim Against John C. Larson, Third-Party Complaint by American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express against John C. Larson


    From: 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19


    Also #27 EH   

    Docket 4


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01113 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Netreva, Inc., a California


    #29.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01113. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Netreva, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


    From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    Netreva, Inc., a California Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

    Plaintiff(s):

    David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


    Chapter 11

    2:00 PM

    6:16-14273


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01114 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. The Blue Law Group, Inc, a


    #30.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01114. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against The Blue Law Group, Inc, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


    From: 7/10/18, 2/27/19 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

    Defendant(s):

    The Blue Law Group, Inc, a Represented By Michael K Blue

    Plaintiff(s):

    David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

    Trustee(s):

    David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Allied Injury Management, Inc.


    Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


    Chapter 11

    2:00 PM

    6:13-27611


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:16-01163 Revere Financial Corporation v. Burns


    #31.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01163. Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Don C. Burns. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)


    From: 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 1/11/17, 3/8/17, 6/7/17, 8/2/17, 8/23/17, 11/8/17, 1/31/18, 4/25/18, 2/27/18


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/31/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

    Defendant(s):

    Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns

    Plaintiff(s):

    Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Franklin R Fraley Jr


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:13-27611


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


    #32.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (Fraley, Franklin)


    From: 7/11/18, 8/22/18, 2/27/19 EH   

    Docket 40


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw

    Defendant(s):

    Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

    Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

    Plaintiff(s):

    Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

    Franklin R Fraley Jr

    2:00 PM

    6:13-27344


    Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:15-01307 Revere Financial Corporation v. OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a


    #33.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01307. Complaint by

    A. Cisneros against OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC CORPORATION, a California corporation, UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350). for Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


    From: 12/30/15, 2/24/16, 4/13/16, 6/22/16, 8/24/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 3/8/17, 7/12/17, 9/13/17, 11/15/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 7/25/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18,

    11/14/18, 12/12/18, 12/19/18, 3/27/19


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/31/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

    Defendant(s):

    OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Represented By

    Misty A Perry Isaacson

    LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC Represented By

    Misty Perry Isaacson

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat

    Misty A Perry Isaacson


    Chapter 7

    UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC Represented By

    Misty Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson

    Plaintiff(s):

    Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

    D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

    2:00 PM

    6:09-37495


    Sultan Fakhoury


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01067 Fakhoury et al v. HAZMAT TSDF INC.


    #34.00 CONT Motion for Enforcement of Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and to Quiet Title


    From: 5/22/19, 5/29/19 EH   

    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

    Defendant(s):

    HAZMAT TSDF INC. Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

    Movant(s):

    Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

    Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

    Plaintiff(s):

    Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Sultan Fakhoury


    Chapter 7

    Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

    Trustee(s):

    Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se


    Wednesday, June 19, 2019

    Hearing Room

    303


    2:00 PM

    6:18-10939


    Vance Zachary Johnson


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01100 Zamucen & Curren LLP v. Johnson


    #1.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01100. Complaint by Zamucen & Curren LLP against Vance Zachary Johnson . (d),(e)))


    From: 7/31/18, 10/3/18, 1/9/19, 1/30/19, 2/27/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: RESCHEDULED TO 7/3/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Party Information

    Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

    Defendant(s):

    Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

    Plaintiff(s):

    Zamucen & Curren LLP Represented By Patricia J Grace

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

    10:00 AM

    6:17-11132

    Jose V Arredondo

    Chapter 13


    #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5754 Felspar Street, Riverside, CA 92509-4903


    MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


    From: 5/28/19 EH   

    Docket 47

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/30/19 AT 10 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose V Arredondo Represented By

    Benjamin A Yrungaray

    Movant(s):

    Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

    Kelsey X Luu Sean C Ferry Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-12700


    Eugene Alexis Padilla


    Chapter 13


    #2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 420 Fenmore Drive, Barstow, CA 92311


    MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


    EH       


    Docket 39

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes.


    Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the cure of the arrears.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Eugene Alexis Padilla Represented By John F Brady

    Movant(s):

    Freedom Mortgage Corporation, its Represented By

    Kristin A Zilberstein Merdaud Jafarnia Nancy L Lee

    Ciro Mestres Melissa Licker

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Eugene Alexis Padilla


    Jennifer C Wong


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-10852


    Gilberto Linares


    Chapter 13


    #3.00 CONT Motion for Relief from Stay 1115 North Park Ave, Rialto, California 92376 MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

    From: 5/21/19 EH   

    Docket 62

    *** VACATED *** REASON: STIP/ORDER ENTERED 6/24/19

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    5/21/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of the cure of the post-conference arrears and the negotiations on an adequate protection agreement.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Gilberto Linares Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    Movant(s):

    U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Sean C Ferry Theron S Covey

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Gilberto Linares


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-11924


    Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule


    Chapter 13


    #4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13343 Chaparral Road, Whitewater, CA 92282


    MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


    EH       


    Docket 54

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of the arrears, as well as negotiations as to an adequate protection order, if needed.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Don Gurule Represented By

    Christopher Hewitt

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Elaine Gurule Represented By Christopher Hewitt

    Movant(s):

    Nationstar Mortgage LLC D/B/A Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule


    Angie M Marth Darlene C Vigil


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-18557


    Gema Beniukoff and Ruben Sotelo


    Chapter 13


    #5.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 FORD FIESTA, VIN #: 3FADP4EJ7FM176223


    MOVANT: REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


    From: 6/11/19 EH   

    Docket 32

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 6/18/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    6/11/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

    Movant to confirm that Debtors have cured all arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Gema Beniukoff Represented By Amanda G Billyard

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Ruben Sotelo Represented By

    Amanda G Billyard

    Movant(s):

    REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Gema Beniukoff and Ruben Sotelo


    Michael D Vanlochem


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19093


    Yolanda Williams


    Chapter 13


    #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11159 Essex Ave, Montclair, CA 91763


    MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    EH   


    Docket 28

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 6/18/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Yolanda Williams Represented By Dana Travis

    Movant(s):

    U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

    Sean C Ferry

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20644


    Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley


    Chapter 13


    #7.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1428 North San Diego Place, Ontario, CA 91764


    MOVANT: EAI CAPITAL LLC


    From: 6/4/19 EH   

    Docket 38

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/4/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Parties are to inform the Court as to the asserted cure of the post-petition arrears and the negotiations regarding an adequate protection agreement.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Terry E Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Janell Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley


    Chapter 13

    EAI CAPITAL LLC Represented By Julian K Bach

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10052


    Dwayne J. Williams and Dana S. Williams


    Chapter 13


    #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 Chrysler 300


    MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.


    EH       


    Docket 37

    *** VACATED *** REASON: STIP/ORDER ENTERED 6/24/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Dwayne J. Williams Represented By Michael Jay Berger

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Dana S. Williams Represented By Michael Jay Berger

    Movant(s):

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Represented By Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11851


    Richard Mills, Jr. and April Evette Humphrey


    Chapter 7


    #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 1930 W College Avenue Apt 111, San Bernardino


    MOVANT: BROADSTONE INVESTORS LLC


    EH   


    Docket 22


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Richard Mills Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Joint Debtor(s):

    April Evette Humphrey Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Movant(s):

    Broadstone Investors LLC Represented By Helen G Long

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11919


    Ramiro Delgado Flores


    Chapter 7


    #10.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 8083 Surrey Lane, Alta Loma, California 91701


    MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    From: 5/28/19 EH   

    Docket 25


    Tentative Ruling:

    5/28/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT to movant to proceed under applicable nonbankruptcy law to enforce its remedies. GRANT waiver of 14-day stay prescribed by FRBP 4001(a)(3). GRANT the Debtor be defined as a borrower pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5(c) (2)(C).


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ramiro Delgado Flores Represented By Andrew S Bisom

    Movant(s):

    U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

    Darren J Devlin

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Ramiro Delgado Flores


    Chapter 7

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12184


    Wilma Jean Curran


    Chapter 7


    #11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 42635 Adalin Way, Palm Desert, CA 92211


    MOVANT: TOWD POINT MASTER FUNDING TRUST 2019-PM27, US BANK N.A.


    EH       


    Docket 14

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to enter into a potential forbearance, loan modification, refinance, or other workout agreement. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request that Debtor be defined as a borrower as defined under Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C) for the purposes of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Wilma Jean Curran Represented By Paul M Stoddard

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Wilma Jean Curran


    Chapter 7

    Towd Point Master Funding Trust Represented By

    Erica T Loftis Pacheco

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12231


    Jose Carlos Pina


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5311 Beach Street, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509


    MOVANT: REHABBERS FINANCIAL, INC.


    CASE DISMISSED 6/6/19


    EH       


    Docket 21

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    As this case has been dismissed, there is no automatic stay, so the Court will DENY relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1), DENY request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property, DENY request under ¶3 to potentially enter into workout, modification, forbearance, or other agreement with Debtor, and DENY relief from the § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. However, the Court will GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay and GRANT relief under § 362(d)(4), meaning that the order, if properly recorded, will be binding in any other case under this title purporting to affect the property, filed not later than 2 years after the date of entry of the order by the Court. DENY request for adequate protection as MOOT.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose Carlos Pina Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Jose Carlos Pina


    Chapter 13

    Rehabbers Financial, Inc. dba Real Represented By

    Mark D Estle

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12408


    INNOCENTI, LLC


    Chapter 7


    #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 17218 Boca Raton Lane, Poway, CA 92064


    MOVANT:BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC


    CASE DISMISSED 6/20/19


    EH       


    Docket 36


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    INNOCENTI, LLC Represented By Rhonda Walker

    Movant(s):

    Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC., as Represented By

    Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12633


    David Jorge Gonzalez, Jr.


    Chapter 7


    #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F3 2GA0 08221


    MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


    EH       


    Docket 10

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter to July 30, 2019, for a hearing on the reaffirmation agreement between the parties to the loan.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    David Jorge Gonzalez Jr. Represented By Carey C Pickford

    Movant(s):

    AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

    Vincent V Frounjian Alex Pettigrew

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    David Jorge Gonzalez, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12808


    Luis A Quintero


    Chapter 7


    #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Nissan Sentra


    MOVANT: BANK OF THE WEST


    EH   


    Docket 14

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Luis A Quintero Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    BANK OF THE WEST Represented By

    Mary Ellmann Tang

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Luis A Quintero


    Chapter 7

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12966


    Hector Castillo Yorba


    Chapter 7


    #16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2019 Jeep Cherokee VIN 1C4PJLCB3KD241346


    MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA


    EH       


    Docket 12

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Hector Castillo Yorba Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

    Jennifer H Wang

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Hector Castillo Yorba


    Chapter 7

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13314


    Tamra Gillian Rehak


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Jayco M-4212 Toy Hauler


    MOVANT: LBS FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION


    EH       


    Docket 16

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT relief from the § 1301 co- debtor stay.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Tamra Gillian Rehak Represented By Norma Duenas

    Movant(s):

    LBS Financial Credit Union Represented By Karel G Rocha

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Tamra Gillian Rehak


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13415


    Diane Tucker


    Chapter 13


    #18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 20104 Strathern Street, Winnetka Area, CA 91306


    MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVING, LLC


    EH   


    Docket 22

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT relief under § 362(d)(4) due to the repeated transfers of the interest in the property without creditor approval and multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the Property. GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request for the order to be binding on any bankruptcy case commenced by or against a debtor claiming an interest in the property for 180 days after the entry of the order. DENY request that the order be binding in any future bankruptcy case without further notice for lack of cause shown. Deny request in ¶14 as no specific relief requested.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Diane Tucker Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Diane Tucker


    Chapter 13

    BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, Represented By

    Edward G Schloss

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13562


    Felipe E. Gamboa and Yanet Gamboa


    Chapter 7


    #19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 LEXUS IS350


    MOVANT: TOYOTA LEASE TRUST


    EH       


    Docket 9

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Felipe E. Gamboa Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Yanet Gamboa Represented By Christopher J Langley

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Felipe E. Gamboa and Yanet Gamboa


    Chapter 7

    Toyota Lease Trust Represented By

    Erica T Loftis Pacheco

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13588


    Fernando Fullecido Fabrigas, Jr.


    Chapter 7


    #20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge Durango VIN 1C4RDHDG8HC724658


    MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA


    EH       


    Docket 8

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Fernando Fullecido Fabrigas Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

    Jennifer H Wang

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Fernando Fullecido Fabrigas, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13744


    Teresa Lopez


    Chapter 7


    #21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC V1F3 2JA2 16094


    MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


    EH       


    Docket 8

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Teresa Lopez Represented By

    Luis Aguilar

    Movant(s):

    AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

    Vincent V Frounjian

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Teresa Lopez


    Chapter 7

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13855


    Noel Guerrero Avalos and Veronica Cellular De Avalos


    Chapter 13


    #22.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Toyota Corolla


    MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


    EH       


    Docket 14

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019

    Service is Proper Opposition: None

    APPEARANCES REQUIRED

    Debtor(s):

    Party Information

    Noel Guerrero Avalos Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Veronica Cellular De Avalos Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

    Austin P Nagel

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14173


    Francine McGwire


    Chapter 13


    #23.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Confirming Termination of Stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(j) or That No Stay is in Effect under 11 U.S.C.

    362(c)(4)(A)(ii)


    MOVANT: VEROS CREDIT, LLC


    EH       


    Docket 10

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/3/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Francine McGwire Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod (MH) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14325


    Martin Ontiveros


    Chapter 13


    #24.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 39628 Garin Drive, Murrieta, CA 92562


    MOVANT: MARTIN ONTIVEROS


    From: 6/4/19, 6/11/19 EH       

    Docket 8

    Tentative Ruling:

    TENTATIVE RULING:


    6/4/2019


    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    Debtor has not presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that this case was not filed in good faith. Specifically, the motion lacks detailed evidence regarding the change in personal financial circumstances. The Court is inclined to DENY Movant’s request for an imposition of the automatic stay.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Debtor’s attorney Allan Cate to personally appear.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

    Movant(s):

    Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Martin Ontiveros


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14623


    Erlwin E Williams


    Chapter 13


    #25.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 717 Juniper St, Hemet, CA 92545


    MOVANT: ERLWIN E. WILLIAMS


    EH   


    Docket 14

    Tentative Ruling:

    TENTATIVE RULING:


    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper

    Opposition: None (Shortened Notice)


    Debtor has not presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the case was not filed in good faith. Specifically, ¶¶ 7 & 8 of the supplemental declaration do not provide detail as to what caused the payment failure in the first place, and how it has been remedied.

    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Erlwin E Williams Represented By Laleh Ensafi

    Movant(s):

    Erlwin E Williams Represented By Laleh Ensafi

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Erlwin E Williams


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14950


    Genaro Flores and Salome Flores


    Chapter 13


    #26.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 31947 Lodge House Ct., Temecula, Ca 92592, and 9901 Variel Ave. #8, Chatsworth, CA 91311


    MOVANT: GENARO FLORES AND SALOME FLORES


    EH   


    Docket 13

    Tentative Ruling:

    TENTATIVE RULING:


    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper (shortened notice). Opposition: No


    The Court is inclined to find that Debtors have shown clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of bad faith, and, as such, is inclined to GRANT their request for continuance of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B).


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Genaro Flores Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Salome Flores Represented By Todd L Turoci

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Genaro Flores and Salome Flores


    Chapter 13

    Genaro Flores Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Salome Flores Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-15166


    Eddie L Fitz


    Chapter 13


    #26.10 Amended Motion (related document(s): 11 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 1712 N. Barranca Ave., Ontario, CA 91764


    MOVANT: HOD REAL ESTATE, LLC


    EH   


    Docket 18

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Improper Opposition: None


    Movant has not provided telephonic notice to the Debtor, as required by the Court’s self-calendaring rules.


    Subject to a brief continuance to allow for proper telephonic notice, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request that a designated law enforcement officer may evict the Debtor, and any other occupants, from the property, regardless of any future bankruptcy filing concerning the Property, for a period of 180 days after the hearing of this motion, without further notice. GRANT request that the order is binding and effective in any bankruptcy case commenced by, or against, any debtor who claims any interest in the Property for a period of 180 days after the hearing of this motion, without further notice. GRANT request that the order is binding in any other bankruptcy case purporting to affect the Property for not later than 2 years after the date of the entry of the order, though a Debtor may move for relief from the order based on changed circumstances or for good cause shown. GRANT request that the

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Eddie L Fitz


    Chapter 13

    order be binding and effective in any bankruptcy case commenced by, or against, the Debtor for a period of 180 days, so that no further automatic stay shall arise in that case as to the Property.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Eddie L Fitz Represented By

    Peter L Nisson

    Movant(s):

    NOD Real Estate, LL Represented By Joseph Trenk

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-15166


    Eddie L Fitz


    Chapter 13


    #26.20 Hearing re Lessor's Objection to Debtor's Certification And/Or Debtor's Further Certification Concerning Residential Property


    EH   


    Docket 17


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Eddie L Fitz Represented By

    Peter L Nisson

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-15717


    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


    Chapter 11


    #27.00 CONT Post Confirmation Status Conference From: 12/18/18, 4/16/19, 5/28/19

    Also #28 EH   

    Docket 161


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. Represented By

    David Lozano

    11:00 AM

    6:17-15717


    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


    Chapter 11


    #28.00 CONT Application for Compensation First Amended Application For Compensation And Reimbursement Of Final Fees And Expenses Of Lozano Law Center, Inc.; Declarations Of David Lozano, Esq. And Joe Ruvalcava Support There for David Lozano, General Counsel, Period: 7/7/2017 to 11/27/2018, Fee: $107196.25, Expenses: $1128.12.


    From: 5/21/19 Also #27

    EH   


    Docket 186


    Tentative Ruling:

    Application: $90,837 in fees ($103,367.20 fees performed post-petition, minus

    $12,530.25 remaining advanced fee payment), $1,128.12 in expenses. Opposition: No.

    Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


    Tentative:


    On July 7, 2017, AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On October 10, 2017, the Court approved the employment application of Lozano Law Center, Inc. ("Applicant") to serve as counsel to Debtor. Debtor’s first amended disclosure statement was approved on June 6, 2018, and Debtor’s first amended plan of reorganization was confirmed on August 3, 2018. No interim fee applications have been filed by Applicant.


    On November 5, 2018, Applicant filed an application for compensation, requesting allowance and payment of $119,279 in fees (less a retainer of $26,000)

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.

    and $988.60 in expenses. The Court denied this application without prejudice on November 30, 2018 due to lumping and Applicant’s request for fees for work done before Debtor had filed their petition. Applicant subsequently moved the


    Chapter 11

    Court on December 14, 2018 to amend the October 10, 2017 employment order to retroactively move their date of initial employment to pre-petition. However, this meant that Applicant was stating that Debtor owed them legal fees for work done prior to petition, meaning that Applicant was a creditor of Debtor. On December 19, 2018, the U.S. Trustee ("UST") filed their opposition to Applicant’s motion to amend the initial employment order.


    In the UST’s opposition, they argued that Applicant was ineligible for any compensation, as Applicant had a prepetition claim against Debtor, due to the unpaid prepetition legal fees owed, meaning that Applicant was an interested party in the matter and thus ineligible to serve as an officer of Debtor’s estate under 11

    U.S.C. § 327(a). In addition, UST also argued that Applicant’s employment disclosures were inaccurate, as Applicant had sworn in its disclosures that they were not a creditor of the estate or owed any funds by the estate.


    On April 30, 2018, Applicant voluntarily dismissed their motion to modify their employment order and filed their current application for compensation and reimbursement of fees and expenses. The U.S. Trustee has not filed an opposition to the current application and has not renewed their argument that Applicant was ineligible to receive any compensation in the matter. On May 21, 2019, the Court tentatively approved the application in the reduced amount of $75,940 in fees and

    $562.22 in expenses. However, the Court gave leave to applicant to file a supplement to their application, explaining why the reduced or struck fee requests should be reinstated. They did so on June 4, 2019.


    1. Whether Applicant is entitled to compensation in the first place.


      The Court has discretion under 11 U.S.C. § 328(c) to independently review, and potentially deny, allowance of compensation for any professional person if, at any time during the professional’s employment under § 327, the professional was not a disinterested person, or held an interest adverse to the interest of the estate with the respect to the matter on which they were employed. The Court does agree with the UST that Applicant’s $3,829.00 claim against Debtor for legal work

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


      Chapter 11

      performed pre-petition rendered Applicant into an interested person in the matter, with their interest being adverse to the interests of the estate. However, the Court, upon review of the work performed by Applicant, and taking into account the small amount of Applicant’s pre-petition claim, the UST’s decision not to renew their objection to Applicant’s compensation, and Applicant’s waiver of the pre- petition fees, finds that Applicant’s adverse interest does not rise to the level where denial of compensation is warranted.


    2. Whether the compensation request is reasonable.


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), the court may award reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services. The court has an independent duty to review the fee application in the absence of objections. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(2). The court "will not indulge in extensive labor and guesswork to justify a fee for an attorney who has not done so himself." In re Taylor, 66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986).


      11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. These factors include time spent, rates charged, necessity of the service, reasonableness of the service, expertise of attorney, and comparable market rates.


      The Court first begins by nothing that Applicant’s services for Debtor appear to have been, overall, generally reasonable and necessary. Applicant’s work resulted in Debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan being confirmed, as well as the striking or reduction of several major claims against Debtor. Applicant’s rates were also reasonable, when compared to comparable market rates and the expertise of the attorneys involved. In addition, Debtor has declared their satisfaction with Applicant’s services. However, there were several issues with the application as first stated, with some of them having been resolved by the Applicant’s supplemental, and some of them remaining.


      1. Deficiencies caused by a lack of a proper narrative statement.


        The original application’s narrative statement of the services rendered during this case, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(D), was deficient. This resulted in a denial of

        $8,051 in fees for 27 time entries, totaling 18.4 hours, relating to Ferguson

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.

        Supplies, a major vendor for Applicant. However, the Court finds that Applicant has properly explained the source of those fees in their supplemental brief, by


        Chapter 11

        explaining why Ferguson was such a critical vendor to Debtor, the difficult nature of the work in bringing Ferguson back to performing on its day to day supplying of Debtor, and the successful resolution of the matter, resulting in Debtor being able to maintain its business. The Court is thereby inclined to now GRANT the

        $8,051 request in fees originally denied.


      2. Excessive time expenditure.


        In addition, the Court had found issue with the seemingly excessive time spent on some of the entries, as well as the use of attorneys to perform what appears to be clerical work in others. These entries included:


        8/11/2017: $3,825 combined request for nine hours of work, four and a half hours for Frank Alverado and David Lazano each, concerning the amending of multiple schedules, the Debtor’s statements of prior cases and financial affairs as well as their summary of assets and liabilities (ECF 48). The Court originally reduced this amount by 33%. However, the Court finds that Applicant’s supplemental information has sufficiently explained why this took so long, given the need to review multiple new lawsuits that had to be listed, and the complexity of listing property that had been stolen. The Court is now inclined to GRANT the $3,825 in full.


        8/17/2017, 8/18/2017, 8/21/2017, 8/22/2017: Four time entries requesting $1,596 for four hours of work concerning the preparation and filing of Applicant’s motion to employ Applicant as a professional, as well as declaration in support thereof (ECF 58). In light of the relatively short and simple nature of the motion and declaration, the Court finds the time spent here excessive, and is inclined to reduce the fees requested by 50% to $798. Applicant has submitted to this reduction.


        8/28/2017, 8/29/2017: Two times entries requesting $1,424 for 3.56 hours of work for brief 3-page motion for joint check agreement, simple declaration in support thereof, and notice of hearing (ECF 59-60). The Court originally reduced the fees here by 33% to $940. Upon review of Applicant’s supplemental motion, explaining the difficulties in preparing the agreement, given the critical

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.

        importance of Ferguson supplies to the Debtor and the imbalance in negotiating power between the two companies, the Court is now inclined to GRANT the request for $1,424 in full.


        6/8/2018: $440 request for a 2-page draft order approving amended Disclosure Statement and Plan (ECF 139). The Court is inclined to reduce the fees here by 50% to $220 due to the excessive time spent. Applicant has submitted to this reduction.


        6/11/2018: $880 request for attorney work preparing ballots and packages for mailing, as well as service of objection bar date (ECF 155). Upon review of the ballots, the work here appears to be of clerical nature, not that which would require the full services of an attorney. The Court is inclined to reduce the fees requested by 50% to $440. Applicant has submitted to this reduction.


        Chapter 11


        6/29/2018: $360 request for preparing filing 2-page proof of service for ballots, order, plan and disclosure statement (ECF 149). In view of the work required, the Court finds the time excessive and is inclined to reduce this request by $260 to

        $100. Applicant has submitted to this reduction.


        7/17/2018: $944 request for completing and filing the summary of completed ballots (ECF 155). In view of the excessive time spent on a simple matter, the Court is inclined to reduce this request by $744 to $200. Applicant has submitted to this reduction.


        The Court is now inclined to reduce the fees requested by Applicant by $2,362 for excessive time spent.


      3. Severely flawed or non-fully-performed services.


        In a time entry dated 6/11/2018, Applicant requests $1,000 for a "supplemental to motion seeking approval of disclosure statement and plan with new dates" which appears to have never been filed with the Court. Instead, Applicant seems to have filed a wholly different motion for an order confirming the plan on July 17, 2018, which has been accounted for in different time entries. The Court is inclined to deny this request for fees. Applicant has submitted to this reduction.

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


        Chapter 11


        Next, Applicant requests $1,600 for four-time entries dated 10/17/2018, 11/05/2018, 11/27/2018, related to the preparation and filing of their fee applications. In light of the severely flawed nature of Applicant’s original fee application, the Court was inclined to deny this request. In the supplemental brief, Applicant requested a 50% reduction in the request, instead of a total denial, given that Applicant had not requested any fees for the subsequent fee application. The Court is still inclined to DENY this request in whole, given the serious problems in not only the original application, but also the first amended application.


        The Court remains inclined to reduce the fees requested by Applicant by $2,600 for services that were either severely flawed, or do not appear to have been fully performed.


        In total, the Court, in view of the materials submitted before it at this time, is inclined to reduce Applicant’s fee request by $4,962 to $85,875.


      4. Compensation for expenses


      Finally, the Court originally took issue with Applicant’s request for compensation of $1,128.12 in expenses, as they had only provided a detailed accounting for

      $562.22 in expenses. Upon explanation within Applicant’s supplemental brief regarding the remaining expenses, and their provided table, the Court is inclined to GRANT the request for expenses of $1,128.12 in its entirety.


    3. Conclusion


    The Court is now inclined to GRANT Applicant’s request for compensation and reimbursement for fees and expenses in the reduced amount of $85,875 in fees, and $1,128.12 in expenses.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. Represented By

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Movant(s):


    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


    David Lozano


    Chapter 11

    AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. Represented By

    David Lozano David Lozano David Lozano David Lozano David Lozano

    2:00 PM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #29.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 10 by Claimant Pacific Steel Group


    From: 4/30/19, 5/7/19 Also #30

    EH   


    Docket 228

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/1/19 AT 9:30 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    2:00 PM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #30.00 Motion for Order Directing the Application of FRBP 7068 in Claim Objection Proceeding


    Also #29 EH   

    Docket 271

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/1/19 AT 9:30 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #31.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 37 by Claimant Franchise Tax Board


    From: 5/7/19 EH   

    Docket 248

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/30/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    Movant(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #32.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Causes of Action .


    MOVANT: ANDRZEJ LUCZYNSKI AND Z&M TRADING, INC.


    From: 4/16/19, 4/30/19, 5/21/19, 6/11/19 Also #33

    EH   


    Docket 38

    Tentative Ruling: 4/30/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.


    On February 19, 2019, Anthony Yue Ming Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Andrzej Luczynski ("Movant") as the holder of an unsecured claim of $1,380,000 relating to a civil lawsuit.


    On March 12, 2019, Movant filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for tortious exclusion of joint venturer, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and wrongful eviction. A state court hearing on Debtor’s objections to the tentative decision and proposed judgment had been scheduled for February 20, 2019, but was ultimately postponed due to the instant bankruptcy filing. It appears from the contents of the motion that Movant is only requesting to have the state court enter judgment, thereby liquidating Movant’s claim.


    On April 2, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The crux of Debtor’s opposition is that the relief from the automatic stay is unnecessary because Movant’s claim has been

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    effectively liquidated. Debtor notes that "[t]he only issue remaining is a determination of any costs and attorney’s fees, which Debtor has attempted to review for reasonableness in hopes that the parties could avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses regarding the same." [Dkt. No. 49, pg. 4, lines 10-12]. On April 9, 2019, Movant filed a reply, effectively arguing that Debtor’s opposition does not contain a legal basis upon which relief from stay could be denied.


    When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:

    1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

    2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

    3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."

    In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:

    The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


    Here, the Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. First, the relief requested would result in a complete resolution of the issues. Debtor’s argument that relief from stay is not necessary to resolve the issue, because the issue could be resolved through the claim objection process in bankruptcy court, is not persuasive to the Court because it does not directly address the first Curtis factor and because, presumably, the state court is in a better position to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceedings. Likewise, the second factor weighs in favor of the relief requested because the entry of a judgment in state court will not interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Debtor has not raised a plausible argument contending otherwise. A choice by Debtor to possibly incur attorney fees arguing the amount of Movant’s fees and costs incurred in the state court proceeding does not constitute interference with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, the Court finds that the tenth through twelfth Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from stay, because the state court proceeding progressed to the point where it was ready for trial, and the state court is in a better position to judge the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceeding.


    The Court finds that the third through nonth Curtis factors are largely irrelevant in this situation and do not materially affect the Court’s analysis. Additionally, the Court is not inclined to find that the instant bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. Movant’s only argument made to support a bad faith finding is that the instant case was filed on the eve of the anticipated state court judgment. Noting that Debtor scheduled Movant’s claim and does not appear to be attempting to undermine the state court proceeding, the Court cannot conclude that Debtor is acting on bad faith simply because he is attempting to satisfy Movant’s claim through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.


    The Court is inclined to GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY request for relief under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    Courtesy NEF Represented By Dawn M Coulson Paul M Stoddard Mark W Edelstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #33.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 3/26/19 Also #32

    EH   


    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20003


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11


    #34.00 Motion for approval of chapter 11 disclosure statement Also #35

    EH   


    Docket 97


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    Movant(s):

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20003


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11


    #35.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 1/8/19, 2/26/19, 3/5/19, 4/10/19, 5/7/19 Also #34

    EH       


    Docket 8


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    10:00 AM

    6:19-11926


    Amber Michelle Perez


    Chapter 7


    #1.00 CONT Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Santander Consumer USA Inc. re 19 Hyundai Elantra


    From: 6/12/19 EH   

    Docket 12


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Amber Michelle Perez Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-15043


    Sandra Lou Harter and Joseph Harter


    Chapter 7


    #2.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 71


    Tentative Ruling:

    6/26/2019

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    TRUSTEE FEES: $ 14,500 TRUSTEE EXPENSES: $ 264.57


    ATTORNEY FEES: $ 25,000 ATTORNEY COSTS: $ 405.19


    TAX PREPARER FEES: $1,000 COURT CHARGES: $350


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Sandra Lou Harter Represented By Carey C Pickford

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Sandra Lou Harter and Joseph Harter


    Chapter 7

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy

    Anthony A Friedman

    11:00 AM

    6:10-51855


    Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


    Chapter 7


    #3.00 CONT Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation From: 1/16/19, 3/27/19

    EH   


    Docket 116

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CLOSED 5/10/09

    Tentative Ruling:

    3/27/2019


    1. Background


      On December 30, 2010, Brian & Delia Gudets ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 20, 2011, Debtors received a discharge. On October 6, 2011, the case was closed.


      On November 27, 2017, UST filed a motion to reopen the case to potentially administer a settlement award arising from prepetition litigation. On January 4, 2018, Debtors amended Schedules B and C to schedule a personal injury claim in the amount of $50,000, and claim an exemption in the property of $50,000. The Court notes that this amendment may have been in violation of FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 1009(a) and 9006(b)(1), however, the Trustee declined to object to the amended exemptions. On February 13, 2018, the IRS filed a proof of claim ("Claim 4") in the amount of $92,398.37, identifying $34,307.73 as secured and $57,990.64 as entitled to priority.


      On April 9, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise, which was approved by this Court on May 3, 2018. After receiving, $50,000 from the approved settlement, Trustee’s general and special counsel filed applications for compensation.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


      Chapter 7


      Trustee filed the instant final report on December 11, 2018. The final report proposes to pay $41,488.74 to Trustee and his counsels for administrative expenses, and to pay the remaining $6,011.26 on account of Claim 4.


      The Court held a hearing on the matter on January 16, 2019, and continued the matter for Trustee to file a supplemental brief. On March 5, 2019, Trustee filed a supplemental brief, and then amended the brief on March 20, 2019.


    2. The Court’s Previous Tentative Ruling


      The Court’s previous tentative included the following:


      In essence, Trustee’s proposed distribution pays the Chapter 7 administrative expenses first, the priority tax claim of the IRS second, and the Debtor’s exemption third (although there are no funds available at this point). After reviewing the compromise motion, it appears that the Trustee’s rationale is as follows. First, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B), exempt property of the Debtor is liable for Claim 4. Second, pursuant to § 724(b), payments made on behalf of IRS are only to be made after payment of the administrative expenses of the estate. Trustee appears to miss, however, § 522(k), which provides that exempt property cannot be used to pay administrative expenses, except under limited circumstances which are not applicable here. This provision would seem to preclude Trustee’s attempt to jump ahead of Debtor’s exemption in the order of distribution.


      At first glance, the three cited provisions above would seem paradoxical. According to Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B) places Claim 4 above Debtor’s exemption.

      According to Trustee, 11 U.S.C. § 724(b) appears clear that payment on behalf of Claim 4 is subordinated to payment of administrative expenses. And 11 U.S.C. § 522(k) appears clear that payment of administrative expenses is subordinated to payment of Debtor’s exemption.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets

      The Court’s resolution of this paradox is the following. 11 U.S.C. § 724(b) is only


      Chapter 7

      applicable to "[p]roperty in which the estate has an interest." Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1), the settlement proceeds at issue are subject to an exemption and therefore have been "exempt[ed] from property of the estate." See also Schwab v. Reilly, 560

      U.S. 770, 775 (2010) ("If an interested party fails to object within the time allowed, a claimed exemption will exclude the subject property from the estate."). Therefore, the estate does not have an interest in the settlement proceeds and § 724(b) is inapplicable. Because § 724(b) is inapplicable, the remaining provisions place Claim 4 ahead of the exemption and the exemption ahead of the administrative expenses. As a result, Trustee’s is precluded from jumping Claim 4 and Debtor’s exemption in the order of distribution. Therefore, the proper distribution appears to be to pay the secured portion of Claim 4, and to return the balance to the Debtor on account of Debtor’s exemption in the proceeds.


    3. Applicable Statutes


      11 U.S.C. § 724(b)(1)-(3) state the following:


      1. Property in which the estate has an interest and that is subject to a lien that is not avoidable under this title (other than to the extent that there is a properly perfected unavoidable tax lien arising in connection with an ad valorem tax on real or personal property of the estate) and that secures an allowed claim for a tax, or proceeds of such property, shall be distributed –

        1. first, to any holder of an allowed claim secured by a lien on such property that is not avoidable under this title and that is senior to such tax lien

        2. second, to any holder of a claim of a kind specified in section 507(a)(1)

          1. or 507(a)(2) (except that such expenses under each such section, other than claims for wages, salaries, or commissions that arise after the date of the filing of the petition, shall be limited to expenses incurred under this chapter and shall not include expenses, incurred under chapter 11 of this title), 507(a)(1)(A), 507(a)(1)(B), 507(a)(3), 507(a)(4), 507(a)(5), 507(a)(6), or 507(a)(7) of this title, to the extent of the amount of such allowed tax claim that is secured by such tax lien;

        3. third, to the holder of such tax lien, to any extent that such holder’s allowed tax claim that is secured by such tax lien exceeds any amount

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets

          distributed under paragraph (2) of this subsection.


          Chapter 7


          11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B) states the following:


      2. Unless the case is dismissed, property exempted under this section is not liable during or after the case for any debt of the debtor that arose, or that is determined under section 502 of this title as if such debt had arisen, before the commencement of the case, except –

      (2) a debt secured by a lien that is –

        1. a tax lien, notice of which is properly filed


          11 U.S.C. § 522(k) states the following: "Property that the debtor exempts under this section is not liable for payment of any administrative expense except . . ." (exceptions inapplicable to instant situation).


    4. Analysis


      In support of its proposed distribution scheme, Trustee extensively cites three cases: (1) In re Fearing, 2008 WL 4690967 (C.D. Cal. 2008); (2) In re Laredo, 334 B.R. 401

      (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005); and (3) In re Bolden, 327 B.R. 657 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2005).


      The Court does not find In re Fearing to be helpful. The district court’s affirmance was summary, and the bankruptcy court opinion was not published. Furthermore, to the extent In re Fearing engaged in any analysis, it appears to have simply adopted the rationale of the other two cases referenced above.


      Additionally, the Court does not find In re Laredo to be particularly helpful. First, the Court notes that In re Laredo does not appear to make an effort to resolve the apparent conflict between the three statutes cited above; 11 U.S.C. § 522(k) is not cited anywhere in the decision. Second, the Court notes that the extensive excerpt quoted in Trustee’s supplemental brief has been rejected by the majority of the courts that have quoted that section.


      The Court does, however, find In re Bolden to contain helpful analysis. Specifically, the following statement from the bankruptcy court in In re Bolden has the potential to resolve the conflict between the three, ostensibly incompatible statutory provisions:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


      Chapter 7

      "Generally, a debtor is not entitled to claim a homestead exemption on property that is subject to an IRS levy." In re Bolden, 327 B.R. 657, 663 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2005). In other words, if Debtors’ exemption is not valid to the extent the underlying property is encumbered by an IRS lien, then the prohibition of § 522(k) does not apply to the extent of the IRS lien. See also GINSBERG & MARTIN ON BANKRUPTCY § 6.02[D][2] (5th ed. 2019) ("Section 522(c)(2)(B) gives special protection to taxes by providing that the debtor cannot claim an exemption in property subject to a properly filed tax lien."). Here, the Court concludes that Debtors are unable to claim an exemption in the settlement proceeds to the extent of the properly noticed tax lien. See, e.g., Owen v.

      Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 308-09 (1991); see also In re Hannon, 514 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D.

      Mass. 2014).


      To the extent that there are proceeds available above and beyond the amount of the tax lien, however, Debtors’ exemption is valid and those funds cannot be used to pay administrative costs due to the unambiguous prohibition included within § 522(k). See In re Selander, 592 B.R. 729, 735 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2018) ("In the absence of the IRS lien, the Trustee’s request would amount to the naked use of exempt funds to pay costs of the sale and his fees – a result prohibited by § 522(k)."). Of particular note is the fact that all of the cases relied upon by Trustee pre-date Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S.

      415, 422 (2014). Prior to Law v. Siegel, courts not infrequently used various equitable powers to essentially surcharge a debtor’s exemption to pay administrative costs. See, e.g., 4 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 522.12[7] (16th ed. 2014) ("Despite the protection provided for exemptions in section 522(k), a number of courts had held that a debtor’s exempt property could be surcharged for administrative expenses in circumstances beyond those provided for in the statute."). Now, however, the Court is left with no discretion over the application of § 522(k) to the extent Debtors have an allowed exemption in equity in the proceeds. Trustee having failed to object to Debtors’ claimed exemption, Debtors’ exemption is valid to the extent that there is equity in the proceeds.


      The Court notes that on March 19, 2019, the IRS amended Claim 4 to reduce its claim to $4,255.91. Therefore, Debtors’ exemption applies to the remaining $45,744.09, and Trustee can use the framework of 11 U.S.C. §724(b) to distribute the remaining

      $4,255.91 for administrative costs.


    5. Attorney’s Lien

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


    Chapter 7


    Trustee next argues that the state court counsel has an equitable attorney lien on the settlement proceeds. The Court rejects this argument for the following reason. Any attorney lien created in this case would have been created postpetition because the underlying state court litigation was not commenced until twenty-one months after the petition date. 11 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(1) provides that property of the estate includes all "legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case." (emphasis added). Because the alleged attorney lien did not exist as of the commencement of the case, it would not have impaired Debtors’ interest in the litigation claim (or its proceeds pursuant to § 541(a)(6)), and therefore, subject to other liens, Debtors’ exemption is valid against the entirety of the proceeds. Because Debtors’ exemption is valid in bankruptcy including as to any interest that state court counsel now has a lien against, those proceeds cannot be used to pay the administrative expenses.


    The Court need not reach the issue of whether state court counsel has a valid, postpetition lien against the proceeds which may be enforceable pursuant to state law. For the reasons stated in the above paragraph, satisfaction of the postpetition lien, if valid, cannot occur through distribution in bankruptcy court.


    The Court is inclined to APPROVE the following distribution: $45,744.09 to Debtors on account of their valid exemption, and the remaining $4,255.91 for administrative costs. Parties to file a supplement or stipulate as to the distribution of funds available for administrative costs.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Brian Gudets Represented By

    Rex Tran Ronald Karz

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Delia F Gudets Represented By Rex Tran Ronald Karz

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Brian Gudets and Delia F Gudets


    Chapter 7

    Sandra L Bendon (TR) Pro Se

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert A Hessling

    11:00 AM

    6:11-33601


    John Vega and Carolyn Vega


    Chapter 7


    #4.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

    Docket 61


    Tentative Ruling:

    6/26/2019

    No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


    The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Accountant for the Trustee, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


    Trustee Fees: $ 6,844.07 Trustee Expenses: $ 1,079.92


    Accountant Fees: $ 3,276 Accountant Costs: $ 397.40


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    John Vega Represented By

    Jenny L Doling

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Carolyn Vega Represented By Jenny L Doling

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    John Vega and Carolyn Vega


    Chapter 7

    Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:11-42675


    Daniel Norman Bailey and Marlene Yvette Bailey


    Chapter 7


    #5.00 Motion For Contempt for Violation of Discharge Injunction 11 U.S.C. § 524(A)(2) EH       

    Docket 70


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Daniel Norman Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Marlene Yvette Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    Movant(s):

    Daniel Norman Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Daniel Norman Bailey and Marlene Yvette Bailey

    Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen


    Chapter 7

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Daniel Norman Bailey and Marlene Yvette Bailey

    Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen


    Chapter 7

    Marlene Yvette Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Daniel Norman Bailey and Marlene Yvette Bailey

    Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen Baruch C Cohen


    Chapter 7

    Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By

    Charles W Daff (TR)

    11:00 AM

    6:11-42675


    Daniel Norman Bailey


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01056 Hanford Development Properties LLC, Central Valley v. Bailey et al


    #6.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01056. Complaint by Hanford Development Properties LLC, Central Valley Holding Company, LLC, Daniel Norman Bailey against Daniel Norman Bailey, Marlene Yvette Bailey. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)) (Cutchin, John)


    From: 5/29/19 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Daniel Norman Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    Defendant(s):

    Daniel Norman Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    Marlene Yvette Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Marlene Yvette Bailey Represented By Baruch C Cohen

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Daniel Norman Bailey


    Chapter 7

    Plaintiff(s):

    Hanford Development Properties Represented By

    John W Cutchin

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By

    Charles W Daff (TR)

    11:00 AM

    6:15-21418


    James Lloyd Walker


    Chapter 7


    #7.00 Motion for Order: (1) Approving The Sale of Real Property of The Estate Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 363(b)(1); (2) Approving Overbid Procedure as Proposed Herein; (3) Approving Payment of Broker(s) Commission; (4) Determination That The Proposed Buyer is a "Good Faith Purchaser" Under 11

    U.S.C. Section 363(m); and (5) Waiver of The Stay Under FRBP 6004(h); Declarations of Robert S. Whitmore and Jerri Tillitt in Support Thereof (Djang, Caroline)


    EH   


    Docket 183

    Tentative Ruling:

    6/26/19

    BACKGROUND


    On November 23, 2015, James Walker ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Debtor previously have five Chapter 7 filings between November 2010 and July 2013, all of which were ultimately dismissed. The procedural background of this case is somewhat complex; the following is a list of the substantive orders entered in this case:


    -May 26, 2016: Orders: (1) extending deadline to file a complaint objecting to discharge; (2) directing turnover of Debtor’s books and records; and (3) approving the employment of Trustee’s counsel.

    -September 7, 2016: Judgment denying discharge

    -March 6, 2017: Order approving the employment of Trustee’s real estate broker

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    James Lloyd Walker


    Chapter 7

    -June 1, 2017: Orders disallowing Claims 1 and 2.

    -October 26, 2017: Relief from stay granted to Bayview Loan Servicing

    -December 1, 2017: Order approving abandonment of certain real properties

    -October 2, 2018: Order granting motion for turnover of certain real property located at 13247 Mammoth St., Hesperia, CA 92344 (the "Property")


    -January 24, 2019: OSC why Debtor should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with turnover motion

    -March 28, 2019: Interim order awarding Trustee’s counsel $36,387.69.


    On June 5, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for an order: (1) approving the sale of real property of the estate; (2) approving overbid procedures; (3) approving payment of broker’s commissions; (4) finding purchaser is a good faith purchaser; and (5) waiver of the Rule 6004(h) stay. Trustee proposes to sell the Property to Paul & Sharon Sepulveda (the "Purchasers") for $310,000. Because the only filed claims in this case have either been withdrawn, amended to $0, or disallowed by order of the Court, the proceeds of this sale would go to pay administrative expenses, with any remaining surplus payable to the Debtor.


    DISCUSSION



    1. Sale of Estate Property


      11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1) allows a trustee to sell property of the estate outside of the ordinary course, after notice and a hearing. A sale pursuant to § 363(b) requires a demonstration that the sale has a valid business justification. In re 240 North Brand Parners, Ltd., 200 B.R. 653, 659 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1996). "In approving any sale outside the ordinary course of business, the court must not only articulate a sufficient business reason for the sale, it must further find it is in the best interest of the estate,

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      James Lloyd Walker


      Chapter 7

      i.e. it is fair and reasonable, that it has been given adequate marketing, that it has been negotiated and proposed in good faith, that the purchaser is proceeding in good faith, and that it is an "arms-length" transaction." In re Wilde Horse Enters., Inc., 136 B.R. 830, 841 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.).


      The motion contains some evidence of the Property’s marketing. Given the fact that the sale appears to be a good faith, arms-length transaction, and the fact that it appears that the sale will result in a surplus estate, the Court concludes that Trustee has articulated an adequate business reason for the sale.


    2. 14-Day Stay


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 6004(h) states: "An order authorizing the use, sale, or lease of property other than cash collateral is stayed until the expiration of 14 days after entry of the order, unless the court orders otherwise." The Court deems the absence of objections to be consent to the relief requested, pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h), and, therefore, will waive the stay of Rule 6004(h).


    3. Miscellaneous Provisions


    The Court has reviewed the remainder of Trustee’s miscellaneous requests. Regarding the overbidding procedures, the Court has reviewed the proposed overbidding procedures and finds such procedures to be reasonable.


    Regarding the broker’s compensation, the motion appears to be silent regarding the specific amount of the broker’s compensation. The Court notes, however, that the declaration of Trustee caps the real estate broker’s commission at 6%, a reasonable and customary amount.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    James Lloyd Walker


    Chapter 7


    Regarding Trustee’s request for a good faith determination pursuant to § 363(m), the Court notes that Trustee has not provided a declaration of the Purchasers. While Trustee’s declaration does contain some evidence to support a good faith finding under § 363(m), the Court will also require a declaration of Purchasers.


    Finally, the Court notes that while the prayer for relief states that Trustee requests an order "[a]uthorizing the distribution of proceeds from the propose sale as set forth herein," the motion does not appear to outline the distribution of proceeds. Assuming that the proceeds will be used to satisfy administrative expenses, then paid to Debtor, this omission does not appear problematic.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion in its entirety conditioned on: (a) a clear identification of the amount of the broker’s commission; (b) the submission of a declaration or other evidence by Purchasers to support a good faith finding under § 363(m); and (c) a proposed distribution of proceeds.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    James Lloyd Walker Represented By

    Andrew Edward Smyth William J Smyth

    Movant(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    James Lloyd Walker


    Chapter 7

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

    11:00 AM

    6:09-37653


    Debi Jo Killian


    Chapter 7


    #8.00 CONT Motion for Order Confirming Personal Injury Award is Exempt and Not Part of Bankruptcy Estate


    From: 1/9/19, 4/10/19, 6/5/19 EH       

    Docket 21

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 6/3/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Debi Jo Killian Represented By Gregory J Doan

    Michael H Raichelson

    Movant(s):

    Debi Jo Killian Represented By Gregory J Doan

    Michael H Raichelson

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By

    Michelle A Marchisotto

    11:00 AM

    6:17-18295


    Eastern Legends CW


    Chapter 7


    #9.00 Chapter 7 Trustees Motion for Order Authorizing Trustees Compromise and Settlement Pursuant to Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure


    EH   


    Docket 29

    Tentative Ruling:

    6/26/19

    BACKGROUND


    On October 3, 2017. Eastern Legends CW ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On November 19, 2018, Trustee filed an adversary complaint against Via Cerro Partners, LP ("Defendant") for avoidance of preferential transfer/fraudulent conveyance, turnover of property of the estate, and recovery of avoided transfers (the "Adversary"). The Adversary is based on a payment of $50,526.56 from Debtor to Defendant less than six months prior to the petition date.


    On April 19, 2019, Trustee filed a compromise motion seeking to settle the Adversary (the "Motion"). On May 21, 2019, the Court set the Motion for hearing, requiring service of a notice of hearing and the Motion on all parties by June 5, 2019. The Court notes that Trustee did not comply with this requirement – no new service of the Motion was filed, and the notice of hearing was not served until June 13, 2019. The notice of hearing also identifies an objection deadline of June 12, 2019 – before the notice was served.


    On June 10, 2019, a creditor, JWLC Imports Inc., filed a limited opposition to the Motion, although the opposition does not appear to oppose the Motion on the merits.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Eastern Legends CW


    Chapter 7


    The background of the Motion is as follows. Unbeknownst to Trustee, Debtor entered into a lease with Defendant on May 15, 2017, and made a $50,526.56 payment to Defendant for 1.5 months rent. After learning of this lease, Trustee reached an agreement with Defendant, the material terms of which are as follows:


    1. Defendant shall be entitled to an administrative rent claim of $25,000, representing two monthly payments of $12,500.


    2. Trustee will have until May 30 to identify and collect any property of the estate located at the leased premises.

    3. Trustee is to dismiss, with prejudice, the subject adversary proceeding.


      DISCUSSION



      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


      On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


      The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Eastern Legends CW


      Chapter 7

      agreement." Id.


      Apart from the fact that Trustee has not complied with the notice and service requirements of this Court’s order entered May 21, 2019, the Motion contains no meaningful evidence which would allow the Court to apply the A&C Properties factors. Furthermore, given the amount of time that has passed since the Motion was filed, the Court will require an update on relevant developments since the filing of the Motion.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence and proper notice and service.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Movant(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

      11:00 AM

      6:17-18295


      Eastern Legends CW


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01228 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Via Cerro Partners, LP


      #10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01228. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Via Cerro Partners, LP. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


      From: 1/16/19, 6/12/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Defendant(s):

      Via Cerro Partners, LP Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Thomas J Polis

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17431


      James Michael Gorman


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 Motion for extension of time to file a complaint objecting to discharge EH   

      Docket 36

      Tentative Ruling:

      6/26/19

      BACKGROUND


      On August 31, 2018, James Michael Gorman ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On February 1, 2019, the Court granted UST’s motion to extend dismissal and discharge deadlines until February 28, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the Court granted UST’s motion to extend dismissal and discharge deadlines until May 31, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the Court granted Trustee’s motion for an order compelling Debtor to produce documents and appear for an examination.


      On May 31, 2019, UST filed a third motion for extension of time to file a complaint objecting to discharge because Debtor has not yet fully complied with Trustee’s requests for information.


      DISCUSSION



      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(a) states:

      1. In a chapter 7 case, a complaint, or a motion under § 727(a)(8) or (9) of the Code, objecting to the debtor’s discharge shall be filed no later than 60

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    James Michael Gorman

    days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a). In a chapter 11 case, the complaint shall be filed no later than the first date set


    Chapter 7

    for the hearing on confirmation. In a chapter 13 case, a motion objecting to the debtor’s discharge under § 1328(f) shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a). At least 28 days’ notice of the time so fixed shall be given to the United States trustee and all creditors as provided in Rule 2002(f) and (k) and to the trustee and the trustee’s attorney.


    And FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(b) states:

    1. On motion of any party in interest, after notice and hearing, the court may for cause extend the time to object to discharge. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2), the motion shall be filed before the time has expired.

    2. A motion to extent the time to object to discharge may be filed after the time for objection has expired and before discharge is granted if (A) the objection is based on facts that, if learned after the discharge, would provide a basis for revocation under § 727(d) of the Code, and (B) the movant did not have knowledge of those facts in time to permit an objection. The motion shall be filed promptly after the movant discovers the facts on which the objection is based.


    Here, Debtor’s delay in providing the requested information constitutes sufficient cause to extend the deadline. See COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 4004.03[2] (16th ed. 2013) ("A debtor’s delays in responding to discovery may be sufficient cause.

    Obviously, a delay in the meeting of creditors to a date close to or after the deadline may constitute such cause.") (citing In re McCormack, 244 B.R. 203 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2000)).


    Moreover, Debtor’s failure to oppose may be deemed consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


    TENTATIVE RULING

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    James Michael Gorman


    Chapter 7


    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    James Michael Gorman Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    United States Trustee (RS) Represented By Everett L Green

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-10335


    Adam Charles Welker and La Nina Marie Ann Welker


    Chapter 7


    #12.00 Debtor's Motion to Avoid Lien with Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC EH       

    Docket 18

    Tentative Ruling:

    6/26/2019


    On January 15, 2019, Adam Charles Welker and La Nina Marie Ann Welker ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Among the assets listed on Schedules A/B was certain real property located at 290 Moroni Ave, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 (the "Property), which Debtor values at $258,000.00. On Schedule C, Debtor claimed an exemption in the Property in the amount of $100,000.00. On Schedule D, Debtor lists three liens against the property: (a) two mortgages, both held by Freedom Mortgage, totaling $191,297; and (b) a judgment lien totaling $3,517.31, held by Portfolio Recovery Associates.


    On April 23, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to avoid the judicial lien of Portfolio Recovery Associates ("Creditors"). On May 22, 2019, the Court entered an order, setting the matter for hearing and requiring supplemental evidence regarding the amount of the senior mortgages, as well as evidence of their recordation. On May 31, 2019, Debtors filed their supplemental evidence.


    The Court, having reviewed the motion and the supplemental evidence, and noting the lack of opposition, is inclined to GRANT the motion, avoiding the judicial lien of Portfolio Recovery Associates.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Adam Charles Welker and La Nina Marie Ann Welker


    Chapter 7


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Adam Charles Welker Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Joint Debtor(s):

    La Nina Marie Ann Welker Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Movant(s):

    Adam Charles Welker Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    La Nina Marie Ann Welker Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Trustee(s):

    Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-16908


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    #13.00 Motion of Healthsure Management Services, LLC, for Order Authorizing and Requiring Debtor to Pay Accrued Post-Petition Management Fees for 2018


    Also #14 & #15 EH   

    Docket 403


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

    Movant(s):

    HealthSure Management Services, Represented By

    Fred Neufeld

    11:00 AM

    6:18-16908


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    #14.00 Application to Employ Brutzkus Gubner as Debtor's Special Litigation Counsel Effective as of May 7, 2019


    Also #13 & #15 EH   

    Docket 393


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

    Movant(s):

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Steven T Gubner

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

    Jason B Komorsky Jason B Komorsky


    Chapter 11

    11:00 AM

    6:18-16908


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    #15.00 Motion for Order Authorizing the Debtor to: (1) Incur Debt Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

    § 364(d); and (2) Enter into Transactions Outside the Ordinary Course of Business Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)


    Also #13 & #14 EH   

    Docket 415


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

    Movant(s):

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

    Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky Jason B Komorsky


    Chapter 11

    2:00 PM

    6:18-12807


    G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:18-01237 G Hurtado Construction, Inc. v. Catano et al


    #16.00 CONT Status Conference re Adversary case 6:18-ap-01237. Complaint by G Hurtado Construction, Inc. against Juan Catano, Faustino Magana, Donahoo & Associates, PC. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). -CLAIM OBJECTIONS Nature of Suit: 14 - Recovery of money/property - other, 91- Declaratory judgment


    From: 2/5/19, 6/5/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/15/2020 AT 2:00 PM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

    Defendant(s):

    Juan Catano Pro Se

    Faustino Magana Pro Se

    Donahoo & Associates, PC Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones

    2:00 PM

    6:09-37495


    Sultan Fakhoury


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01067 Fakhoury et al v. HAZMAT TSDF INC.


    #17.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01067. Complaint by Sultan Fakhoury, Catherine M Fakhoury against Filter Recycling Services Inc, HAZMAT TSDF INC.. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Marchetti, Albert)


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

    Defendant(s):

    HAZMAT TSDF INC. Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

    Plaintiff(s):

    Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

    Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

    Trustee(s):

    Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Sultan Fakhoury


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:15-14230


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:17-01085 PRINGLE v. Winn et al


    #18.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01085. Complaint by JOHN P PRINGLE against Ralph Winn. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). and other Defendants including DOES 1-25 Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13-Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer, 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property,14 - Recovery of money/property - other, 91- Declaratory judgment)


    From: 7/12/17, 8/23/17, 10/25/17, 5/16/18, 6/27/18, 9/26/18, 1/23/19, 3/27/19


    EH   


    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/16/19 AT 2 PM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

    Defendant(s):

    Ralph Winn Represented By

    Douglas A Plazak

    Sterling Security Service, Inc. Represented By Seth W Wiener

    Natalia V Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

    Steven B Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

    Stacy Winn Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Douglas A Plazak


    Chapter 7

    Plaintiff(s):

    JOHN P PRINGLE Represented By Charity J Manee Robert P Goe

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

    2:00 PM

    6:18-13057


    Desert Ice Castle, LLC


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01025 Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 trustee v. Liu


    #19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01025. Complaint by Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 trustee against Anthony Liu. (Charge To Estate -

    $350.00). with Summons and Adversary Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Goe, Robert)


    From: 3/27/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/16/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Desert Ice Castle, LLC Represented By Paul M Stoddard

    Defendant(s):

    Anthony Liu Pro Se

    Plaintiff(s):

    Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 Represented By Ryan S Riddles Robert P Goe

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

    Thomas J Eastmond

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20025


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


    #20.00 Pre-Trial Conference RE: [19] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint to Determine Dischargeability Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6) and COUNTERCLAIM of Shatara Adrienne Thompson for Defamation, Counterclaim by Robert Lee Thompson Jr, Shatara Adrienne Thompson against Beatriz M Gutierrez (Lampl, Robert)


    Also #21 EH   

    Docket 19


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Defendant(s):

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Plaintiff(s):

    Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:17-20025


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


    #21.00 Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01052. Complaint by Beatriz M Gutierrez against Robert Lee Thompson Jr, Shatara Adrienne Thompson . willful and malicious injury))


    Also #20 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Defendant(s):

    Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Plaintiff(s):

    Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:03-15174


    Devore Stop A General Partners


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


    #22.00 Motion to Reconsider (related documents 125 Application (Generic), 130 Motion to Amend, 135 Order on Generic Application (BNC-PDF)) Reconsider Order (docket # 135) Denying Motion for Nunc pro Tunc Employment of Real Estate Broker Jesse Bojorquez with three declarations


    EH   


    Docket 321

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/21/19 AT 2:00 PM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

    Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

    Devore Stop Represented By

    Hutchison B Meltzer

    Defendant(s):

    Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

    Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

    Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

    American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Devore Stop A General Partners


    Chapter 7

    Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

    Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

    Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

    Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

    Plaintiff(s):

    William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

    Trustee(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-17589


    Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


    Chapter 13


    #1.00 CONT Motion for Turnover of Property From: 5/9/19, 6/6/19

    EH   


    Docket 78

    Tentative Ruling:

    5/9/2019

    BACKGROUND


    On September 11, 2017, Ryan & Jennifer McHugh ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On November 9, 2017, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The plan has subsequently been modified twice.


    On April 7, 2019, Debtors filed a motion for turnover, requesting turnover from Wexler Wallace LLP of certain funds received from a confidential personal injury settlement.


    DISCUSSION



    The Court notes that service appears improper for several reasons. First, it does not appear that Wexler Wallace LLP has been served with the instant motion at all.

    Second, a motion for turnover is, at the least, a contested matter under FED. R. BANKR.

    P. Rule 9014 and, therefore, the Rule 7004 service requirements apply. Finally, Rule

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Ryan Patrick McHugh and Jennifer Lynne McHugh


    Chapter 13

    7001(1) requires that a motion for turnover, with certain exceptions not applicable here, requires an adversary proceeding. While this requirement may be waivable in certain circumstances, service of the underlying motion here is inadequate.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    Ryan Patrick McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Jennifer Lynne McHugh Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-14516


    Gary Ray Osborn


    Chapter 13


    #2.00 Application for Compensation of Fees and Costs filed by Doling Shaw & Hanover, APC in Accordance with Rule 2016(a); Memorandum of Receipts and Disbursements; Rule 2016(b) Statement; and Declaration of Summer M. Shaw in Support thereof with attached Exhibits 1 through 4 and Proof of Service for Summer M Shaw, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 3/30/2017 to 4/10/2019, Fee:

    $27900.00, Expenses: $557.98. EH   

    Docket 59

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/11/19 AT 11 AM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Gary Ray Osborn Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

    Movant(s):

    Gary Ray Osborn Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-20737


    Alfredo N Adriano


    Chapter 13


    #3.00 Motion For Sanctions/Disgorgement


    CASE DISMISSED 3/14/19


    EH   


    Docket 35

    Tentative Ruling:


    BACKGROUND


    Debtor Alfredo Adriano ("Debtor") filed his voluntary pro se Ch. 13 petition on December 27, 2018. His case was dismissed at the confirmation hearing on March 14, 2019, after he failed to appear at the § 341 creditors’ meeting, and a 180 refiling bar was set. Alan Darvish ("Darvish") attempted to substitute as Debtor’s attorney and reopen Debtor’s case on May 7, 2019, which was denied. Christopher Langley motioned the Court to substitute as Debtor’s attorney and vacate the 180-day bar against refiling on May 17, 2019, which was granted. The Court entered an order confirming the dismissal of Debtor’s case, but vacating the 180-day refiling bar, on June 13, 2019.


    The Chapter 13 Trustee Rod Danielson ("Trustee") filed this motion for disgorgement of fees received by Darvish on May 20, 2019. Trustee alleges, based on Debtor’s declaration, that Debtor paid Darvish $900 on December 26, 2019, for representation in his bankruptcy matter. The documents in Debtor’s case were prepared by Darvish, but filed pro se by Debtor to hide Darvish’s involvement in the matter. Darvish also allegedly advised Debtor not to attend the § 341 creditor’s meeting and confirmation hearing, which is what resulted in the dismissal of Debtor’s case. Trustee seeks a total disgorgement of the $900 received by Darvish from Debtor.


    DISCUSSION


    Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1(u)(1) states that an attorney retained to represent a Debtor in a Chapter 13 case is responsible for representing the debtor in all matters arising in the case, besides adversary proceedings. LBR 1001-1(f) states that failure to follow the local bankruptcy rules may be grounds for sanctions pursuant to applicable law, including the inherent powers of the Court under 11 U.S.C. § 105. Darvish’s

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Alfredo N Adriano


    Chapter 13

    receipt of $900 as a retainer to represent Debtor, and his utter failure to actually represent Debtor in his Chapter 13 case, is a clear violation of LBR 3015-1(u)(1), as well as his ethical duties as an attorney. In addition, Darvish has repeatedly engaged in this course of conduct, resulting in harm to a multitude of debtors who paid him for representation. In light of this, the Court finds that total disgorgement of the $900 that Darvish received from Debtor is justified under LBR 1001-1(f), and the Court’s inherent power under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to issue any order necessary and appropriate to carrying out the provisions of the bankruptcy code.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    5/21/2019

    Service is Proper Opposition: None

    The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s request that Alan Darvish disgorge the

    $900 in attorney’s fees he received from Alfredo Adriano.

    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Alfredo N Adriano Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-10047


    Jose Antonio Contreras and Mayra Lorena Contreras


    Chapter 13


    #4.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 3/14/19, 4/25/19

    EH    


    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jose Antonio Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Mayra Lorena Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-11090


    Angela Clarice Atou


    Chapter 13


    #5.00 Objection to AMENDED Claim no 6 filed by Brian and Janet Maus Also #6

    EH       


    Docket 32


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-11090


    Angela Clarice Atou


    Chapter 13


    #6.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 5/9/19, 5/23/19

    Also #5 EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-11281


    Nadia Michelle Lipscomb


    Chapter 13


    #7.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 5/9/19

    EH    


    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Nadia Michelle Lipscomb Represented By Benjamin R Heston

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-11480


    John J. Culp


    Chapter 13


    #8.00 Motion to Disallow Claims #5 LV Tower 52 EH   

    Docket 29


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    John J. Culp Represented By

    Patricia M Ashcraft

    Movant(s):

    John J. Culp Represented By

    Patricia M Ashcraft

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-11586


    Jerome D Williams


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 Debtor's Motion for Order Disallowing Claim # 2-1 filed by LVNV Funding, LLC EH       


    Docket 25

    Tentative Ruling:

    6/27/2019 (NO OPPOSITION).


    BACKGROUND:


    On February 28, 2019, Jerome Williams ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 13, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


    On March 12, 2019, LVNV Funding LLC ("Creditor") filed a claim ("Claim 2-1") for

    $2,101.26 for what appears to be credit card debt originally held by Credit One Bank. The Debt has a last payment date of February 13, 2018, and a charge off date of June 29, 2008.


    Debtor filed this claim objection on May 24, 2019, seeking total disallowance.


    APPLICABLE LAW:


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


    When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Jerome D Williams


    Chapter 13

    "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


    ANALYSIS:


    The Court will treat Creditor’s failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h).


    11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


    1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


      1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


    CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Jerome D Williams


    Chapter 13

    Claim 2-1 is based on debts created by a written contract. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. Creditor’s proof of claim shows that the last transaction on the debt was on February 13, 2008, and the charge off date was June 29, 2008. This means that the statute of limitations on the debt ran in 2012. As such, claim 2-1 is barred by California statute and unenforceable. The Court is thus inclined to disallow it in its entirety.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISALLOWING Claim 2-1 in its entirety.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jerome D Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Movant(s):

    Jerome D Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12439


    Caleb Gervin and Ashley Gervin


    Chapter 13


    #10.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 6/6/19

    EH    


    Docket 2


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Caleb Gervin Represented By

    Christopher Hewitt

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Ashley Gervin Represented By Christopher Hewitt

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12676


    Anthony P Mendoza and Lena E Mendoza


    Chapter 13


    #11.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Anthony P Mendoza Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Lena E Mendoza Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12699


    Luis Enrique Chavez


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Luis Enrique Chavez Represented By Giovanni Orantes

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12702


    Cesar Armando Carrillo


    Chapter 13


    #13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Cesar Armando Carrillo Represented By Matthew D Resnik

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12704


    Robert Joseph Slapp, III


    Chapter 13


    #14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Robert Joseph Slapp III Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12755


    Salvador Caridad Rodriguez


    Chapter 13


    #15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Salvador Caridad Rodriguez Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12763


    Michael Dorris


    Chapter 13


    #16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Michael Dorris Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12769


    Waryeva D. Anderson


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Waryeva D. Anderson Represented By

    C Scott Rudibaugh

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12792


    Mary Tejuoso


    Chapter 13


    #18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/22/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mary Tejuoso Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12848


    Erika Ramirez


    Chapter 13


    #19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/10/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Erika Ramirez Represented By Marend M Garrett

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12851


    Ty Nicholas Garner, Sr. and Diane Lynn Garner


    Chapter 13


    #20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Ty Nicholas Garner Sr. Represented By

    Steven Steven Diamond

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Diane Lynn Garner Represented By

    Steven Steven Diamond

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12885


    Steven Pierce and Alejandra Pierce


    Chapter 13


    #21.00 Motion for Setting Property Value of 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee Also #22

    EH   


    Docket 12

    Tentative Ruling:

    6/27/2019

    NO OPPOSITION

    BACKGROUND


    Steven and Alejandra Pierce ("Debtors") filed their voluntary Ch. 13 petition on April 5, 2019. Creditor LBS Financial Credit Union ("Creditor") filed a claim on April 15, 2019, for $32,130.99, secured by Debtors’ 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited Edition (the "Property"). Creditor claims a secured amount of $26,511 and an unsecured amount of $5,619.99.


    Debtor filed this motion to value the Property on April 15, 2019. Debtors assert that the Property should be valued at $21,775.00 and have provided a NADAguides value report giving a rough trade-in valuation of the Property at $21,775.00. The valuation would create a secured portion of $21,775 and an unsecured portion of $10,335.99.


    DISCUSSION



    One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011). In re Penrod concerned itself with an identical fact pattern to the one presented here, with the debtor there seeking to

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Steven Pierce and Alejandra Pierce


    Chapter 13

    bifurcate the "negative equity" created by trading in a vehicle on which she stilled owed significant funds, just as Debtor here is seeking to do. Id. at 1160. However, there is still the question of valuation.


    Presently the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

    N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


    According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


    Here, Debtor is requesting the lowest possible trade-in valuation provided by NADAguides. The Court is disinclined to accept this valuation. As noted in the NADAguides report, the trade-in value for a vehicle is different, and lower, than the retail value, even for vehicles in the same condition. The clean retail value set by the NADAguides report is $26,900, which is more than the secured amount claimed by Creditor. As such, the Court finds that Debtor has failed to submit proper evidence to support their proposed valuation, or any valuation below the secured amount currently claimed by Creditor.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    6/27/2019


    SERVICE: PROPER


    OPPOSITION: NONE


    The Court is inclined to DENY Debtor’s motion to value their 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee at $21,775.

    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.



    Party Information

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Debtor(s):


    Steven Pierce and Alejandra Pierce


    Chapter 13

    Steven Pierce Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Alejandra Pierce Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Movant(s):

    Steven Pierce Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

    Alejandra Pierce Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12885


    Steven Pierce and Alejandra Pierce


    Chapter 13


    #22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


    Also #21 EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Steven Pierce Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Alejandra Pierce Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12923


    Charles Cuevas and Paula Cuevas


    Chapter 7


    #23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 5/14/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Charles Cuevas Represented By Anerio V Altman

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Paula Cuevas Represented By

    Anerio V Altman

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12927


    Richie R. A. Marella and Maribel L Marella


    Chapter 13


    #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Richie R. A. Marella Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Maribel L Marella Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12936


    Oscar Ricardo Chavez


    Chapter 13


    #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/26/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Oscar Ricardo Chavez Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12940


    Harmony Rachelle Ramos


    Chapter 13


    #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/2/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Harmony Rachelle Ramos Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12950


    Edwina Brewer


    Chapter 13


    #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Edwina Brewer Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12952


    Jennifer Wilder


    Chapter 13


    #28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/26/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jennifer Wilder Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12988


    Jesus Francisco Alcocer


    Chapter 13


    #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jesus Francisco Alcocer Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-12989


    Andres Isak Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/16/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Andres Isak Garcia Represented By

    Christian McLaughlin

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13008


    Adrian Magana Saldivar


    Chapter 13


    #31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Adrian Magana Saldivar Represented By Kevin Tang

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13027


    Octavio P Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/29/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Octavio P Garcia Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13034


    Kervin R Routt


    Chapter 13


    #33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/14/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Kervin R Routt Represented By Andrew Williams

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13037


    Hong Song and XiaoTao Zhai


    Chapter 13


    #34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Hong Song Represented By

    Jonathan J. Lo Michael Y Lo

    Joint Debtor(s):

    XiaoTao Zhai Represented By Jonathan J. Lo Michael Y Lo

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13055


    Christopher Mata


    Chapter 13


    #35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 4/29/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Christopher Mata Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13064


    David Frisinga


    Chapter 13


    #36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    David Frisinga Represented By Amid Bahadori

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13103


    Sheri Lynn Cooper


    Chapter 13


    #37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

    Docket 0


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Sheri Lynn Cooper Represented By

    James D. Hornbuckle

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-13433


    Tracy R. Franco


    Chapter 13


    #38.00 Motion by United States Trustee to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case With A Re-filing Bar


    EH   


    Docket 11

    Tentative Ruling:

    NO OPPOSITION


    BACKGROUND:


    Tracy Franco ("Debtor") filed her voluntary Chapter 13 petition on April 23, 2019. Debtor’s petition lacked most of the required documents, which were not filed by May 7, 2019 as required.


    Debtor has had four prior cases since 2015, with two in 2015 and two in 2017. All but one of the cases were dismissed at the plan confirmation hearing, due to incomplete filings, failure to make plan payments, and for other reasons. One case from 2015 resulted in a confirmed plan, but was dismissed within three months for an almost immediate failure to make plan payments.


    The U.S. Trustee filed their motion to dismiss this case for abuse, and request for imposition of a one-year refiling bar, on May 10, 2019.


    ANALYSIS:


    Debtor’s failure to oppose this motion will be read as consent under Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(h).


    Bankruptcy courts may dismiss Chapter 13 cases under § 1307(c) for bad faith or abuse. In re Wenegieme, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19605 at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The continual failure of Debtor to properly prosecute her four prior cases, as well as the current one before the Court, is sufficient evidence of such. Even if bad faith was not found, the case would still be dismissed under § 1307(c)(9) for failure to file the

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Tracy R. Franco


    Chapter 13

    required information under § 521(a). As such, the Court is inclined to dismiss Debtor’s Chapter 13 case.


    The Court has the power to impose a bar against refiling cases under the bankruptcy code under § 349(a) and its inherent authority under § 105 of the Bankruptcy Code. Id. at *10-11. This can be done for cause, such as to prevent a bad-faith serial filer from refiling, or when the court needs to curtail other abuses. Id. The Court is inclined to find such cause in this matter. Debtor will now likely have had five cases dismissed, with only a single Chapter 13 plan confirmed, due to her continual failure to perform the most basic requirements of a Chapter 13 petitioner. Even the one case which resulted in a confirmed plan only lasted for three months after confirmation due to Debtor’s failure to make plan payments within a month of the plan’s commencement. The Court finds that this is evidence of bad faith on her part, which warrants a one-year refiling bar to prevent further abuse of the bankruptcy system and waste of judicial resources.


    TENTATIVE RULING


    The Court is inclined to GRANT the U.S. Trustee’s motion for dismissal of Debtor’s Chapter 13 case with prejudice. GRANT request for a one-year bar against refiling by Debtor.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED.



    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Tracy R. Franco Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

    Abram Feuerstein esq

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Tracy R. Franco


    Chapter 13

    11:00 AM

    6:19-14341


    Jacques Vashonne Powers


    Chapter 13


    #39.00 Order To Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed Re Multiple Filings EH   

    Docket 0

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/7/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jacques Vashonne Powers Represented By Edgar P Lombera

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-14623


    Erlwin E Williams


    Chapter 13


    #39.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 717 Juniper St, Hemet, CA 92545


    MOVANT: ERLWIN E. WILLIAMS


    From: 6/25/19 EH   

    Docket 14

    Tentative Ruling:

    TENTATIVE RULING:


    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper

    Opposition: None (Shortened Notice)


    Debtor has not presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the case was not filed in good faith. Specifically, ¶¶ 7 & 8 of the supplemental declaration do not provide detail as to what caused the payment failure in the first place, and how it has been remedied.

    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Erlwin E Williams Represented By Laleh Ensafi

    Movant(s):

    Erlwin E Williams Represented By Laleh Ensafi

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Erlwin E Williams


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:15-14501


    Vonetta M Mays


    Chapter 13


    #40.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 208


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Vonetta M Mays Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:15-19432


    Kirk Eugene Frantz and Mary Elizabeth Frantz


    Chapter 13


    #41.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 151

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 6/13/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Kirk Eugene Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Mary Elizabeth Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:15-22362


    Catherine L Mires


    Chapter 13


    #42.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 42

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 5/21/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Catherine L Mires Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-10620


    Larry R. Hoddick and Joyce Kelly Hoddick


    Chapter 13


    #43.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 49

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 4/30/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Larry R. Hoddick Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Joyce Kelly Hoddick Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-10811


    Manuel Huertas


    Chapter 13


    #44.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19, 5/9/19, 6/6/19

    EH   


    Docket 40


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Manuel Huertas Represented By Marcella Lucente

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-11245


    Bryan D. Chriss


    Chapter 13


    #45.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 111


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Bryan D. Chriss Represented By Michael Smith Cynthia L Gibson Sundee M Teeple

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-12011


    Joshua Lawrence Ferguson and Wendy Mae Ferguson


    Chapter 13


    #46.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 58


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Joshua Lawrence Ferguson Represented By Stephen H Darrow

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Wendy Mae Ferguson Represented By Stephen H Darrow

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-13599


    Maurice Frank Manceau


    Chapter 13


    #47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 105


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Maurice Frank Manceau Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-19890


    Katrina Renee McDowell


    Chapter 13


    #48.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19

    EH   


    Docket 57

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/22/19 AT 11 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Katrina Renee McDowell Represented By Jenny L Doling

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:17-20489


    Michael S McGowan and Brandy L McGowan


    Chapter 13


    #49.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 51


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Michael S McGowan Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Brandy L McGowan Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-13172


    Michelle Cadena Quinn


    Chapter 13


    #50.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/9/19, 6/6/19

    EH   


    Docket 65


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Michelle Cadena Quinn Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-17700


    Nick Caropino


    Chapter 13


    #51.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 6/6/19

    EH   


    Docket 41


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Nick Caropino Represented By Julie J Villalobos

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-17735


    Carlos Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #52.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/11/19, 6/6/19

    EH   


    Docket 34


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Carlos Garcia Represented By John F Brady

    Movant(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-18614


    Frank Thomas Scott


    Chapter 13


    #53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 36


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Frank Thomas Scott Represented By

    Ramiro Flores Munoz

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-20232


    Diana Marie Perrone


    Chapter 13


    #54.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 6/6/19

    EH   


    Docket 24


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Diana Marie Perrone Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:18-20569


    Dolores Thompson Boone


    Chapter 13


    #55.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 38


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Dolores Thompson Boone Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:01 AM

    6:16-18125


    Marc Meisenheimer


    Chapter 13


    #55.10 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

    Docket 73


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Marc Meisenheimer Represented By Lionel E Giron

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    12:00 PM

    6:18-16811


    Donna Roberto


    Chapter 13

    Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


    #56.00 CONT Hearing re Summary Judgment - Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 2 Declaration of Nathan R. Klein in Support of Defendants Tyler & Bursch, LLP and Jennifer L. Bursch's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 3 Declaration of Jennfer L. Bursch in Support of Defendants Tyler & Bursch, LLP and Jennifer L. Bursch's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 4 Compendium of Exhibits in Support of Defendants Tyler & Bursch, LLP and Jennifer L. Bursch's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Donna Roberto's Complaint for Declaratory Relief # 5 Declaration of Service) (Tyler, Robert)

    (MOTION TO DISMISS CONVERTED TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)


    From: 11/29/18, 3/13/19, 5/30/19 Also #57 - #59

    EH   


    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Defendant(s):

    Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Jennifer Bursch Represented By

    12:00 PM

    CONT...


    Movant(s):


    Donna Roberto


    Robert H Tyler


    Chapter 13

    Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Plaintiff(s):

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    12:00 PM

    6:18-16811


    Donna Roberto


    Chapter 13

    Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


    #57.00 Order To Show Cause Why Complaint And Counter-Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed


    Also #56 - #59


    EH   


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Defendant(s):

    Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Plaintiff(s):

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    12:00 PM

    6:18-16811


    Donna Roberto


    Chapter 13

    Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


    #58.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [10] Counterclaim by Tyler & Bursch, LLP against Tyler & Bursch, LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter Dated 3/17/17 # 2 Exhibit Letter Dated 4/14/17) (Tyler, Robert)


    From: 3/13/19, 5/30/19 Also #56 - #59

    EH   


    Docket 10


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Defendant(s):

    Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Plaintiff(s):

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    12:00 PM

    6:18-16811


    Donna Roberto


    Chapter 13

    Adv#: 6:18-01186 Roberto v. Tyler & Bursch, LLP et al


    #59.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01186 Complaint by Donna Roberto against Tyler & Bursch, LLP, Jennifer Bursch. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)


    From: 11/29/18, 3/13/19, 5/30/19 Also #56 - #58

    EH    


    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Defendant(s):

    Tyler & Bursch, LLP Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Jennifer Bursch Represented By Robert H Tyler

    Plaintiff(s):

    Donna Roberto Pro Se

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    9:30 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #1.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 10 by Claimant Pacific Steel Group


    From: 4/30/19, 5/7/19, 6/25/19 Also #2 - #4

    EH   


    Docket 228

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED 7/1/19 AT 11:00 AM

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    9:30 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #2.00 CONT Motion for Order Directing the Application of FRBP 7068 in Claim Objection Proceeding


    From: 6/25/19 Also #1 - #4 EH   

    Docket 271

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED 7/1/19 AT 11:00 AM

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    9:30 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #3.00 Evidentiary hearing re Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan Also #1 - #4

    EH   


    Docket 199

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED 7/1/19 AT 11:00 AM

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    9:30 AM

    6:18-15841

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

    Chapter 11


    #4.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18, 1/15/19, 2/26/19, 3/19/19,

    6/4/19


    Also #1 - #3 EH   

    Docket 5

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED 7/1/19 AT 11:00 AM

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    9:30 AM

    6:18-15841

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

    Chapter 11

    #5.00 Notice of Resolution of Objection to Plan and Motion to Approve Non-Material Modification to Plan including Approval of Settlement and Compromise of Disputes by and between Debtor and Pacific Steel Group

    Also # 1-4 EH       

    Docket 307

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED 7/1/19 AT 11:00 AM

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #6.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 10 by Claimant Pacific Steel Group


    From: 4/30/19, 5/7/19, 6/25/19 Also #2 - #4

    EH   


    Docket 228

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #7.00 CONT Motion for Order Directing the Application of FRBP 7068 in Claim Objection Proceeding


    From: 6/25/19 Also #1 - #4 EH   

    Docket 271

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #8.00 Evidentiary hearing re Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan Also #1 - #4

    EH   


    Docket 199

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

    Chapter 11


    #9.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18, 1/15/19, 2/26/19, 3/19/19,

    6/4/19


    Also #1 - #3 EH   

    Docket 5

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

    Chapter 11

    #10.00 Notice of Resolution of Objection to Plan and Motion to Approve Non-Material Modification to Plan including Approval of Settlement and Compromise of Disputes by and between Debtor and Pacific Steel Group

    Also # 1-4 EH       

    Docket 307

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10939


    Vance Zachary Johnson


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01100 Zamucen & Curren LLP v. Johnson


    #1.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01100. Complaint by Zamucen & Curren LLP against Vance Zachary Johnson . (d),(e)))


    From: 7/31/18, 10/3/18, 1/9/19, 1/30/19, 2/27/19 EH   

    Docket 1

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/17/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Party Information

    Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

    Defendant(s):

    Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

    Plaintiff(s):

    Zamucen & Curren LLP Represented By Patricia J Grace

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10939

    Vance Zachary Johnson

    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01106 Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Johnson

    #2.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01106. Complaint by Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC against Vance Zachary Johnson. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))

    From: 7/10/18, 2/20/19, 4/24/19 EH       

    Docket 1

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/17/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Party Information

    Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

    Defendant(s):

    Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

    Plaintiff(s):

    Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC Represented By

    Todd L Turoci

    Trustee(s):

    Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #1.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 10 by Claimant Pacific Steel Group

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 4/30/19, 5/7/19, 6/25/19, 7/1/19 Also

    EH   


    Docket 228

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/3/19

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #2.00 CONT Notice of Resolution of Objection to Plan and Motion to Approve Non- Material Modification to Plan including Approval of Settlement and Compromise of Disputes by and between Debtor and Pacific Steel Group

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 7/1/19 Also

    EH       


    Docket 307

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/3/19

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    Movant(s):

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841


    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


    Chapter 11


    #3.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18, 1/15/19, 2/26/19, 3/19/19,

    6/4/19; 7/1/19


    Also # EH   

    Docket 5

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/3/19

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    11:00 AM

    6:18-15841

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

    Chapter 11


    #4.00 CONT Evidentiary hearing re Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 7/1/19 Also

    EH   


    Docket 199

    Debtor(s):

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/3/19

    Party Information

    LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

    10:00 AM

    6:15-19432

    Kirk Eugene Frantz and Mary Elizabeth Frantz

    Chapter 13


    #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 152079 Rio Vista Road, Big River, CA 92242


    MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


    From: 5/28/19, 6/4/19 EH   

    Docket 155

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 7/30/19 AT 10:00 AM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Kirk Eugene Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Mary Elizabeth Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Movant(s):

    Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as Represented By

    Erin M McCartney Edward G Schloss

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:16-15668


    Roger C Jefferson


    Chapter 13


    #2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4372 Edenwild Lane, Corona, CA 92883


    MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    EH   


    Docket 122


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    The Court notes that there is no evidence presented with either of Debtor's oppositions. The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Roger C Jefferson Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Represented By Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:16-16910


    Noryvir Frondozo Bequilla


    Chapter 13


    #3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 34102 Ladyfern Court, Lake Elsinore, CA, 92532 Under 11 U.S.C. § 362


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.


    EH   


    Docket 57

    *** VACATED *** REASON: STIPULATED ORDER ENTERED 7/8/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Noryvir Frondozo Bequilla Represented By Scott Kosner

    Movant(s):

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By

    Dane W Exnowski

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-10742


    William Fuentes and Martha C Orozco de Fuentes


    Chapter 13


    #4.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 867 South Ironwood Avenue, Rialto (Bloomington Area), CA 92316 .


    MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


    From: 5/21/19, 6/4/19 EH   

    Docket 47

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    5/21/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request for termination of the 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a) co-debtor stay.

    GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    William Fuentes Represented By Marlin Branstetter

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    William Fuentes and Martha C Orozco de Fuentes


    Chapter 13

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Martha C Orozco de Fuentes Represented By Marlin Branstetter

    Movant(s):

    Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-11633


    Heather Marie Smith


    Chapter 13


    #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 GMC TERRAIN FWD 4DR DEN


    MOVANT: ACAR LEASING LTD


    EH    


    Docket 54


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Heather Marie Smith Represented By Carey C Pickford

    Movant(s):

    ACAR Leasing LTD d/b/a GM Represented By Jennifer H Wang

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-11759


    Monica Rees


    Chapter 13


    #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2334 North Palm Avenue, Rialto, CA 92377


    MOVANT: U.S. BANK N.A.


    EH   


    Docket 40


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Monica Rees Represented By

    Julie J Villalobos

    Movant(s):

    U.S. Bank, N.A., successor trustee to Represented By

    Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-12118


    Veronica A Mendoza


    Chapter 13


    #7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 CHEVROLET MALIBU VIN 1G1ZB5ST7GF286242


    MOVANT: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC


    EH       


    Docket 73

    *** VACATED *** REASON: STIPULATED ORDER ENTERED 7/8/2019

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Veronica A Mendoza Represented By Stephen S Smyth William J Smyth

    Movant(s):

    PRA Receivables Management LLC Represented By

    Jennifer H Wang

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-12700


    Eugene Alexis Padilla


    Chapter 13


    #8.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 420 Fenmore Drive, Barstow, CA 92311


    MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


    From: 6/25/19 EH       

    Docket 39

    *** VACATED *** REASON: STIPULATED ORDER ENTERED 7/9/2019

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes.


    Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the cure of the arrears.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Eugene Alexis Padilla Represented By John F Brady

    Movant(s):

    Freedom Mortgage Corporation, its Represented By

    Kristin A Zilberstein

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Eugene Alexis Padilla


    Merdaud Jafarnia Nancy L Lee

    Ciro Mestres Melissa Licker Jennifer C Wong


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-16227


    Shawn L. Johnson


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6583 Kunzite Court, Mira Loma, CA 91752


    MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    From: 5/21/19, 6/4/19 EH   

    Docket 49

    Tentative Ruling:

    Tentative Ruling:


    5/21/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request for termination of the 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a) co-debtor stay.

    GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Debtor(s):


    Shawn L. Johnson


    Chapter 13

    Shawn L. Johnson Represented By Mark S Martinez

    Movant(s):

    U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

    Nancy L Lee Darren J Devlin

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-17722


    Joseph Daniel Coleman and Rosalinda Maria Coleman


    Chapter 13


    #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 KIA Forte EX Sedan 4D


    MOVANT: CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE


    EH       


    Docket 38


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Joseph Daniel Coleman Represented By Nathan Fransen

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Rosalinda Maria Coleman Represented By Nathan Fransen

    Movant(s):

    Capital One Auto Finance, a division Represented By

    Cheryl A Skigin

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Joseph Daniel Coleman and Rosalinda Maria Coleman


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-18270


    Linnea Rennee-Chrismon Allen


    Chapter 13


    #11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11623 Primavera Road, Pinon Hills, CA 92372


    MOVANT: SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC


    From: 5/28/19, 6/11/19 EH   

    Docket 34

    *** VACATED *** REASON: STIP/ORDER ENTERED 6/26/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    5/28/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT movant ability to proceed under applicable nonbankruptcy law to enforce its remedies. GRANT waiver of 14-day stay prescribed by FRBP 4001(a)(3). GRANT defining Debtor as borrower in 2920.5(c)(2)(C).


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Linnea Rennee-Chrismon Allen Represented By Scott Kosner

    Movant(s):

    SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING Represented By

    Mukta Suri

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Linnea Rennee-Chrismon Allen


    Nancy L Lee


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-20487


    Ann Marie Smith


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6140 Sard St, Alta Loma, CA 91701


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.


    From: 6/11/19 EH   

    Docket 85


    Tentative Ruling:

    6/11/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from § 1301(a) stay. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay.

    GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Movant(s):

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee Jonetta A Graves

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Ann Marie Smith


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-13793


    Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno


    Chapter 13


    #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3209 S Edenglen Paseo #C, Ontario, CA, 91761


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


    EH   


    Docket 66


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

    Movant(s):

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno

    Dane W Exnowski


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-14053


    Wallace Stanton Miles


    Chapter 13


    #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 51700 Avenida Martinez, La Quinta, CA 92253


    MOVANT: MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP


    EH   


    Docket 47

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/20/19 AT 2:00 PM

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Wallace Stanton Miles Represented By

    Stuart G Steingraber

    Movant(s):

    MTGLQ Investors, L.P. Represented By Nancy L Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-15033


    Victor Portillo


    Chapter 13


    #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1288 N Mt Vernon Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92411


    MOVANT: DITECH FINANCIAL LLC


    EH   


    Docket 44


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Victor Portillo Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

    Movant(s):

    Ditech Financial LLC, its successors Represented By

    Kelsey X Luu

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19368


    Salvador Marquez


    Chapter 13


    #16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11468 Caraway Court, Fontana, CA 92337


    MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    EH   


    Docket 29


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2,3, and 12.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Salvador Marquez Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

    Nancy L Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20644


    Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1428 North San Diego Place, Ontario, CA 91764


    MOVANT: EAI CAPITAL LLC


    From: 6/4/19; 6/25/19 EH   

    Docket 38

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/3/2019

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/4/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Parties are to inform the Court as to the asserted cure of the post-petition arrears and the negotiations regarding an adequate protection agreement.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Terry E Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Janell Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley


    Chapter 13

    EAI CAPITAL LLC Represented By Julian K Bach

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20793


    Jose R. Lezama


    Chapter 7


    #18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 NISSAN SENTRA


    MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


    EH    


    Docket 14


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose R. Lezama Represented By

    Jennifer Ann Aragon - SUSPENDED -

    Movant(s):

    NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By

    Michael D Vanlochem

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12923


    Charles Cuevas and Paula Cuevas


    Chapter 7


    #19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6812 Angelina St, Chino, CA 91710


    MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    EH   


    Docket 30


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Debtors had a previous case dismissed for failure to file information on February 21, 2019. Pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A), the automatic stay in this case terminated on May 7, 2019. Debtors sought a continuance of the automatic stay, but the Court denied the motion on May 7, 2019. Therefore, there is no automatic stay in the instant case, and the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as moot.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Charles Cuevas Represented By Anerio V Altman

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Paula Cuevas Represented By

    Anerio V Altman

    Movant(s):

    HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Charles Cuevas and Paula Cuevas


    Nancy L Lee


    Chapter 7

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13091


    Christopher S. Lopez and Renee F. Lopez


    Chapter 7


    #20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 GMC Yukon SLT Sport Utility 4D


    MOVANT: EXETER FINANCE LLC


    EH       


    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Christopher S. Lopez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Renee F. Lopez Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

    Movant(s):

    Exeter Finance, LLC Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Christopher S. Lopez and Renee F. Lopez


    Chapter 7

    Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13314


    Tamra Gillian Rehak


    Chapter 13


    #21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge RAM 3500


    MOVANT: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


    EH      


    Docket 22


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from § 1301 co-debtor stay. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Tamra Gillian Rehak Represented By Norma Duenas

    Movant(s):

    Navy Federal Credit Union Represented By Asya Landa

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14343


    Sonia Lafree Lane


    Chapter 7


    #22.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1385 North K Street, San Bernardino, CA 92411


    MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK


    EH    


    Docket 10


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Sonia Lafree Lane Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    MidFirst Bank Represented By Nancy L Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14420


    Fabio E. Delcid and Maria C Delcid


    Chapter 7


    #23.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota Corolla IM


    MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


    Also # 24


    EH    


    Docket 8


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Fabio E. Delcid Represented By Suzette Douglas

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Maria C Delcid Represented By Suzette Douglas

    Movant(s):

    Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Fabio E. Delcid and Maria C Delcid


    Austin P Nagel


    Chapter 7

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14420


    Fabio E. Delcid and Maria C Delcid


    Chapter 7


    #24.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Toyota Tundra


    MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


    Also # 23


    EH    


    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    (1) and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Fabio E. Delcid Represented By Suzette Douglas

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Maria C Delcid Represented By Suzette Douglas

    Movant(s):

    Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Fabio E. Delcid and Maria C Delcid


    Austin P Nagel


    Chapter 7

    Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14440


    Herber Morales and Ana L Morales


    Chapter 7


    #25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 HONDA PILOT, VIN: 5FNY F3H5 1FB0 03406


    MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


    EH   


    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). DENY request for relief under § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under

    ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Herber Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Ana L Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Movant(s):

    AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

    10:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Herber Morales and Ana L Morales


    Vincent V Frounjian


    Chapter 7

    Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14458


    Alfonso Velasco, Jr


    Chapter 7


    #26.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 8830 Jefferson Drive, Buena Park, CA, 90620


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    EH   


    Docket 8


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

    1. and (2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alfonso Velasco Jr Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Wells Fargo Bank, National Represented By

      Dane W Exnowski

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14516


      Federico Rodriguez and Anita Rodriguez


      Chapter 7


      #27.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5678 Lewis Avenue, Riverside, CA 92503


      MOVANT: AJAX MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2018-G, MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES, SERIES 2018-G, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      7/9/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Joint Debtor had a previous case dismissed for failure to file information on March 1, 2019. Therefore, pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A), the automatic stay in this case expired on June 23, 2019. Because the automatic stay expired on June 23, 2019, the Court is inclined to DENY all requests for relief that do not relate to an in rem request as MOOT.


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(4) based on multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the property. While there is only one recent bankruptcy case affecting the property, that case was a pro se Chapter 13 filing the day before a scheduled foreclosure sale. The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Federico Rodriguez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Federico Rodriguez and Anita Rodriguez


      Chapter 7

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anita Rodriguez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Movant(s):

      Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 2018-G, Represented By

      Renee M Parker

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14632


      Guadalupe Zanina Aguilar


      Chapter 7


      #28.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F7 5FA1 83421


      MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Guadalupe Zanina Aguilar Represented By Jorge A Meza

      Movant(s):

      HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14876


      Mansoureh Mansi Azhdarian


      Chapter 7


      #29.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 HONDA HR-V, VIN: 3CZR U5H7 5JM7 05895


      MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Mansoureh Mansi Azhdarian Represented By Rachelle Shakoori

      Movant(s):

      HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-15043


      Jose Carlos Pina


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5311 Beach Street, Jurupa Valley,

      CA 92509


      MOVANT: REHABBERS FINANCIAL, INC.


      EH   


      Docket 8

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      7/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      • NONE LISTED -

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Jose Carlos Pina Pro Se

        Movant(s):

        Rehabbers Financial, Inc. dba Real Represented By

        Mark D Estle

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:18-10155


        Jose De Jesus Hernandez


        Chapter 11


        #31.00 Motion For Authority To Use, Sell, Or Lease, Other Than In The Ordinary Course Of Business, Property Of The Estate, And To Accept Contribution Funds To Pay The Secured Second Trust Deed Holder In Full For The Property Located At 3095 Ocelot Cir, Corona, Ca. 92882 Under Bankruptcy Code Section 363(B)


        EH   


        Docket 138

        Tentative Ruling:

        7/9/19


        BACKGROUND


        On January 9, 2018, Jose De Jesus Hernandez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. One of Debtor’s assets is the real property located at 3095 Ocelot Cir.

        Corona, Ca 92882 (the "Property"), which has a second trust deed held by Wells Fargo.


        Debtor entered into a stipulation with Wells Fargo ordering Debtor to either sell or refinance the Property by July 1, 2019, because the second deed of trust held by Wells Fargo has matured and is due. The stipulation was approved by Court order entered February 19, 2019.


        Debtor has not been able to refinance the subject property, so to attempt to satisfy the terms of the stipulation and keep the rental income the Property provides, Debtor wants to pay the second trust deed on the Property using contributions from family and friends as well as property of the estate.

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Jose De Jesus Hernandez


        Chapter 11

        DISCUSSION

        After reviewing the motion, the Court has the following concerns:

        1. Insufficient Evidence

          • The Debtor has failed to provide evidence as to the valuation of the property— including as to any equity -- which would allow the Court to evaluate Debtor’s sound business purpose argument.

          • The evidence of Debtor’s ability to pay his portion of the secured second trust deed is insufficient. In the motion, Debtor proposes to pay $58,000.00, but Exhibit D indicates that Debtor’s checking account has $45,135.70. Debtor has not provided any evidence as to his ability to pay the remaining $12,864.30.

          • The Debtor has failed to provide evidence of compliance with the prior order granting the stipulation between Debtor and Wells Fargo, as the motion contains no evidence of Debtor’s efforts to sell the property.

        2. Merits


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

    Defendant(s):

    Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

    Plaintiff(s):

    Jose Carrillo Represented By

    John F Bazan

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:15-14230


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:18-01214 Pringle v. Histen, APC et al


    #20.00 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment under LBR 7055-1 EH       

    Docket 17


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/17/19


    1. BACKGROUND


      On April 28, 2015, Home Security Stores, Inc. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Ralph Winn and Stacey Winn (collectively, the "Winns;" individually, "R. Winn" and "S. Winn") were shareholders, directors, and officers of Debtor. The Winns are trustees of the Winn Family Trust ("Winn Trust").

      On October 29, 2018, Chapter 7 Trustee John Pringle ("Trustee") filed a complaint against Harry J. Histen, APC ("Defendant"), a California law firm of which Harry J. Histen ("Histen") is the primary attorney. Trustee’s complaint includes four causes of action: avoidance of transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 3439.04(a)(2) and 3439.05; avoidance of transfers pursuant to U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B); recovery of avoided transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550; and disallowance of claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502. Defendant did not respond to UST’s complaint. On

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Home Security Stores, Inc.


      Chapter 7

      December 19, 2018, the clerk entered default against Defendant. On June 21, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for default judgment.


      Trustee’s complaint arises out of Defendant’s previous relationship as an attorney to the Winns, the Winn Trust, and Debtor. Trustee asserts that the Debtor’s principals’ and insiders’ actions exacerbated and potentially caused Debtor’s bankruptcy. In 2014, Defendant performed legal services for the Winns related to the sale of commercial real property titled in the name of the Winn Trust. According to the Trustee, Defendant advised the Winns to create a UCC-1 lien against Debtor. Trustee also asserts that before filing for bankruptcy, Debtor paid Defendant for the legal services performed for the Winns and the Winn Trust. Debtor paid Defendant

      $15,013.00 via three checks, which were deposited into Defendant’s bank account, without receiving consideration. Trustee also claims that despite a court order and subpoena for recorded information, Defendant has failed to provide documentation proving he performed legal services for Debtor.


    2. DISCUSSION

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Home Security Stores, Inc.

      1. Entry of Default


        Chapter 7


        FED. R. CIV. P. 55 states that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Local Rule 7055-1 provides additional requirements relating to a motion for entry of default judgment, and those requirements have been substantially satisfied here.


      2. Motion for Default Judgment


        1. Proper Service of Summons and Complaint


          FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(b)(1) states, in part:


          1. ervice may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows:


            1. Upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual

              2:00 PM

              CONT...


              Home Security Stores, Inc.

              regularly conducts a business or profession.


              Chapter 7


              Here, it appears Trustee properly served Defendant and Histen. Defendant’s address on the proof of service document matches Histen’s office address on the State Bar of California website.


        2. Merits of Plaintiff’s claim


          Upon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Almog v. Golden Summit Investors Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 12867972 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ("When reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability as true.").


          Here, the complaint includes four causes of action: (1) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 3439.04(a)

            1. and 3439.05; (2) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11


          U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B); (3) recovery of voidable transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550; and (4) disallowance of claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502. The memorandum of

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          points and authorities in support of Trustee’s motion for default judgment does not explicitly address any of these causes of action.


          The Trustee’s first claim for relief is avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §S 544(b) and CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 3439.04(a)(2) and 3439.05. Section 544(b) states that a trustee may avoid a transfer of an interest of the debtor that is voidable under applicable law. CAL CIV. CODE § 3439.04(a)(2) provides that a transfer is voidable if the debtor made the transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor either (a) was left with remaining assets that were unreasonably small in relation to a debtor’s business or transaction, or (b) should have reasonably believed debtor did not have the ability to pay debts when they became due. Trustee asserts that the legal services were performed for the Winns and the Winn Trust and consideration was not provided to the Debtor in exchange for the transfers. Trustee also claims that the transfers from Debtor to Defendant worsened Debtor’s financial situation and led to Debtor’s bankruptcy. Thus, Trustee sufficiently alleges that Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for transfer and that Debtor was aware of mounting debt and its inability to pay debts.

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          CAL. CIV. CODE § 3439.05 provides that a transfer is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer if the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and the debtor was or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. Trustee alleges that Defendant’s legal services were rendered to the Winns and Winn Trust, that transfers were made from Debtor to Defendant for said services, and that Debtor did not receive consideration for the transfers. Trustee also asserts that the transfers potentially lead to Debtor’s bankruptcy. Trustee’s complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendant did not receive reasonably equivalent value and that Debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer.


          The Trustee’s second claim for relief is avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B). Section 548(a)(1)(B) states that a trustee may avoid any transfer made by the debtor within two years before filing their bankruptcy petition if the debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for transfer and (ii)(I) was or became insolvent due to the transfer, (II) was engaged in business and left with unreasonably small capital after the transfer, (III) was left with debt that would be beyond the debtor’s ability to pay, or (IV) made such transfer to or for the benefit of an insider under an employment contract and not

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          through the ordinary course of business. Trustee claims that the transfers made from Debtor to Defendant were made within two years before Debtor filed for bankruptcy and that Debtor did not receive consideration for the transfers. Trustee also claims the transfers led to Debtor’s financial demise and that the transfers were made for the benefit of the Winns and Winn Trust, not the Debtor. Trustee sufficiently asserts the transfers were made within two years of the petition, that Debtor did not receive equivalent value in exchange of transfer, that Debtor was insolvent due to the transfers, and the transfers were made for the benefit of insiders under an employment contract outside the ordinary course of business.


          The Trustee’s third claim for relief is recovery of voidable transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550. Section 550 provides that transfers avoided under 11 U.S.C. §§

          544 and 548 are recoverable from the initial transferee. Trustee claims that the transfers are avoidable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 548 and that Defendant was the initial transferee. Therefore, Trustee’s complaint sufficiently alleges that the transfers are recoverable from the Defendant.


          The Trustee’s fourth and final claim for relief is disallowance of claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502. Section 502(d) states that a court shall disallow any

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          claim of an entity, unless that entity has paid the amount or turned over property for which transferee is liable under § 550. As Defendant has not filed a claim for an avoidable transfer, and as it appears the bar date has passed, denial of the forth claim as moot is warranted.


          Section 502(j) states that a reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed depending on the case’s equities. Possible reconsideration of claims does not affect validity of payment or transfer from the estate to a holder of an allowed claim. Defendant has not made a reconsidered claim; therefore, there is no claim to disallow. Trustee has failed to allege that Defendant cannot bring previously allowed claims against the estate because Defendant has not made any claims.


        3. Amount of Damages


      Here, Trustee is requesting recovery of the transfers or a money judgment of equal value with interest at the federal rate. Local Rule 55-2 states that if the amount claimed in a default judgment is unliquidated, the applicant may submit evidence of the amount of damages by declarations. In the motion, Trustee attached copies of the transfer via three checks from Debtor to Defendant. Check 1 is valued at $7,513.00, check 2 is valued at $5,000, and check 3 is valued at $2,500, all checks totaling to

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Home Security Stores, Inc.


      Chapter 7

      $15,013.00.


    3. TENATIVE RULING


    The Court is inclined to GRANT the Trustee’s default judgement motion as to the first, second, and third causes of action, and DENY, as moot, the motion with respect to the fourth cause of action.

    APPREANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

    Defendant(s):

    Harry J Histen, APC Pro Se

    Harry J Histen, III Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    John Pringle Represented By

    Robert P Goe

    Plaintiff(s):

    John Pringle Represented By

    Robert P Goe

    Trustee(s):

    John P Pringle (TR) Represented By

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Home Security Stores, Inc.


    Robert P Goe Charity J Manee


    Chapter 7

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20247


    Stephen Lynn Overmyer


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01039 McCune v. Overmyer


    #21.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01039. Complaint by

    B. Lynn McCune against Stephen Overmyer . false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud))


    From: 4/17/19 EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Stephen Lynn Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

    Defendant(s):

    Stephen Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

    Plaintiff(s):

    B. Lynn McCune Represented By James A Rainboldt

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:15-19432


    Kirk Eugene Frantz and Mary Elizabeth Frantz


    Chapter 13


    #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 152079 Rio Vista Road, Big River, CA 92242


    MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


    From: 5/28/19, 6/4/19, 7/9/19 EH   

    Docket 155

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/10/19 AT 10:00 A.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Kirk Eugene Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Mary Elizabeth Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

    Movant(s):

    Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as Represented By

    Erin M McCartney Edward G Schloss

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:16-15914


    Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda


    Chapter 13


    #2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 1C6RR6GG7HS651216


    MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.


    EH         


    Docket 43


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

    Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

    Movant(s):

    Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Represented By

    Erin M McCartney

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:16-20459


    Winnie Marie Quanstrom


    Chapter 13


    #3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3769 Castle Oak Drive, Riverside, CA 92505


    MOVANT: SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC


    EH       


    Docket 55


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    While the motion is opposed, the merits of the opposition are not clear, and the declaration in support is insufficient as it is from Debtor’s counsel. Therefore, he Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Winnie Marie Quanstrom Represented By Dana Travis

    Movant(s):

    Specialized Loan Servicing LLC Represented By

    Mukta Suri Nancy L Lee

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Winnie Marie Quanstrom


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-11132


    Jose V Arredondo


    Chapter 13


    #4.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5754 Felspar Street, Riverside, CA 92509-4903


    MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


    From: 5/28/19, 6/25/19 EH   

    Docket 47


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Jose V Arredondo Represented By

    Benjamin A Yrungaray

    Movant(s):

    Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

    Kelsey X Luu Sean C Ferry Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:17-20487


    Ann Marie Smith


    Chapter 13


    #5.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6140 Sard St, Alta Loma, CA 91701


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.


    From: 6/11/19, 7/9/19 EH   

    Docket 85

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/29/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    6/11/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT relief from § 1301(a) stay. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay.

    GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Movant(s):

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee Jonetta A Graves

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Ann Marie Smith


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-10978


    Veronica Hernandez


    Chapter 13


    #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1404 North Tustin Avenue L2, Santa Ana, CA, 92705


    MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


    EH       


    Docket 36


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Veronica Hernandez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

    Movant(s):

    Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

    Paul W Cervenka Darlene C Vigil Dane W Exnowski

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Veronica Hernandez


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-11363


    John Louis Baumann and Tracey Leigh Baumann


    Chapter 13


    #7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 8550 Cabin Place, Riverside, CA 92508


    MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


    EH       


    Docket 45

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/26/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    John Louis Baumann Represented By

    M. Wayne Tucker

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Tracey Leigh Baumann Represented By

    M. Wayne Tucker

    Movant(s):

    Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr Represented By

    Gilbert R Yabes Dane W Exnowski Kelsey X Luu

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-13566


    Marco Tulio Magana and Gloria Louisa Magana


    Chapter 13


    #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 TOYOTA CAMRY


    MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


    EH       


    Docket 47


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Marco Tulio Magana Represented By Daniel King

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Gloria Louisa Magana Represented By Daniel King

    Movant(s):

    TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By

    Erica T Loftis Pacheco

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Marco Tulio Magana and Gloria Louisa Magana


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-17556


    Daniel Javier Garcia


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 NISSAN VERSA


    MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


    EH       


    Docket 51


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

    Movant(s):

    NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By

    Michael D Vanlochem

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-18478


    Jose Granados and Norma Granados-Maycott


    Chapter 13


    #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23919 Ridge Point Cr, Moreno Valley, CA 92557


    MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


    EH       


    Docket 42


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jose Granados Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Norma Granados-Maycott Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Jose Granados and Norma Granados-Maycott


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-18739


    Heather Gibson


    Chapter 13


    #11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6375 Lime Road, Phelan, CA 92371


    MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC


    EH       


    Docket 42


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


    Debtor to apprise the Court of the status of sale efforts, and parties to apprise the Court of the status of arrears.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Heather Gibson Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

    Movant(s):

    Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Darlene C Vigil

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19368


    Salvador Marquez


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11468 Caraway Court, Fontana, CA 92337


    MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    From: 6/9/19 EH   

    Docket 29


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/9/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2,3, and 12.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Salvador Marquez Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

    Nancy L Lee

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Salvador Marquez


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-19400


    Maria D Valdez Quintero


    Chapter 13


    #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 29104 Escalante Road, Quail Valley, CA 92587


    MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


    EH       


    Docket 44


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Maria D Valdez Quintero Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    Movant(s):

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Maria D Valdez Quintero


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:18-20759


    Elida Soto


    Chapter 13


    #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13692 Bedford Place, Victorville, CA 92392


    MOVANT: NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC


    EH       


    Docket 40


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

    Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Elida Soto Represented By

    William G Cort

    Movant(s):

    NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, Represented By

    Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-10556


    Timothy Mark Aitken and Esmeralda Aitken


    Chapter 7


    #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1414 West 71St Street, Los Angeles, CA 90047


    MOVANT: DEUTCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


    EH       


    Docket 20


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(4) based on the unauthorized transfer of property twelve days before the filing of the petition. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Timothy Mark Aitken Pro Se

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Esmeralda Aitken Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Gilbert R Yabes

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Timothy Mark Aitken and Esmeralda Aitken


    Chapter 7

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons

    10:00 AM

    6:19-12633


    David Jorge Gonzalez, Jr.


    Chapter 7


    #16.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F3 2GA0 08221


    MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


    From: 6/25/19 EH       

    Docket 10

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    6/25/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter to July 30, 2019, for a hearing on the reaffirmation agreement between the parties to the loan.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    David Jorge Gonzalez Jr. Represented By Carey C Pickford

    Movant(s):

    AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

    Vincent V Frounjian Alex Pettigrew

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    David Jorge Gonzalez, Jr.


    Chapter 7

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-13328


    Luis Antonio Gaeta


    Chapter 13


    #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 KIA FORTE


    MOVANT: AUTOMOTIVE CREDIT CORPORATION


    EH         


    Docket 24


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: No


    Debtor had a previous case dismissed on March 28, 2019. Pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A), the automatic stay in this case terminated on May 19, 2019. Therefore, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the § 1301 co-debtor stay, and otherwise DENY the motion as moot.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Luis Antonio Gaeta Represented By Daniel King

    Movant(s):

    Automotive Credit Corporation Represented By Jennifer H Wang

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14380


    Matthew Lucas Lozolla and Jennifer Leann Lozolla


    Chapter 7


    #18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Nissan Frontier


    MOVANT: FIRST TECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


    EH       


    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.

    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Matthew Lucas Lozolla Represented By Aaron Lloyd

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Jennifer Leann Lozolla Represented By Aaron Lloyd

    Movant(s):

    First Tech Federal Credit Union Represented By Mirco J Haag

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Matthew Lucas Lozolla and Jennifer Leann Lozolla


    Chapter 7

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-14643


    Brigitte Ann Oligher


    Chapter 7


    #19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 FORD MUSTANG VIN 1FATP8UH9G5243073


    MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


    EH    


    Docket 11


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Brigitte Ann Oligher Represented By Donald W Sieveke

    Movant(s):

    Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

    Jennifer H Wang

    Trustee(s):

    Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-15486


    Paul Robert Schultz


    Chapter 7


    #20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 27632 Longmeadow Ct, Moreno Valley, CA 92555


    MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


    EH       


    Docket 12


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Paul Robert Schultz Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-15979


    James Meyer


    Chapter 13


    #21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 5203 El Cerrito Drive #218 Riverside, CA 92507


    MOVANT: KMF CANYON CREST, LLC


    EH   


    Docket 7

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/29/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    James Meyer Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Todd Brisco Represented By

    Todd A Brisco

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    10:00 AM

    6:19-16207


    Christian Flores


    Chapter 13


    #21.10 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 14476 Wapiti Way Victorville, CA 92394; three 2012 Freightliner Cascadia; 2018 Chevrolet Tahoe and a 2018 Toyota Camry


    MOVANT: CHRISTIAN FLORES


    EH   


    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    Having reviewed the motion, notice appearing proper, good cause appearing, and noting the lack of any opposition, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to all creditors.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Christian Flores Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    Movant(s):

    Christian Flores Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

    10:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Christian Flores


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    2:00 PM

    6:13-25794


    ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


    Chapter 11

    Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


    #22.00 Plaintiff's Notice of Additional Funds to Interplead; Declaration of Melissa Davis Lowe in Support Thereof


    EH       


    Docket 87


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Defendant(s):

    Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

    Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

    Employment Development Represented By

    Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

    Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

    Steven Schonder Pro Se

    United states of america Represented By Charles Parker Najah J Shariff

    Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


    Chapter 11

    DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

    Melissa Davis Lowe

    Plaintiff(s):

    ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

    James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

    Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

    Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20003


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11


    #23.00 Trustee's Motion by United States Trustee to Dismiss Bankruptcy Case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1112(b)


    EH       


    Docket 133

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/19

    BACKGROUND


    On November 27, 2019, LC Stahl LLC ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. The case was dismissed on December 6, 2018, for failure to file case commencement documents, but dismissal was vacated five days later. Debtor’s only asset was certain real property located at 19275 Vista De Montanas, Murrieta, CA 92562 (the "Property"). Schedule A identified the Property as having a value of

    $2,633,000, and Schedule D identified Loan Funder LLC Series 1829 ("Creditor") as holding a secured claim in the amount of $1,070,000. Ultimately, Creditor filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $1,320,665.61.


    On February 5, 2019, Creditor filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay. After holding three hearings on the motion for relief from the automatic stay, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing, which was ultimately held on June 10, 2019. After taking testimony regarding the fair market value of the Property, the Court granted relief from stay to Creditor.


    On June 28, 2019, after the motion for relief from the automatic stay was granted, UST filed a motion to dismiss the case. UST asserts that there is cause to dismiss the

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11

    case under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) because: (1) Debtor lacks the ability to reorganize; (2) Debtor has failed to file monthly operating reports; and (3) Debtor has failed to comply with the UST’s guidelines. On July 18, 2019, Debtor filed a response indicating that it conceded the first of UST’s arguments – that Debtor no longer has the ability to reorganize.


    DISCUSSION



    11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) states:


    Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c), on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause unless the court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.


    Section 1112(b)(4) provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of cause. Included in the list is § 1112(b)(4)(A) which provides that "substantial or continuing loss to or diminution of the estate and the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation" constitutes cause for dismissal. Because Debtor has conceded that it no longer has a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation, the Court concludes that dismissal (or conversion) is appropriate under § 1112(b)(4)(A).


    Furthermore, 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) provides that the Court must consider whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. As noted by UST, it appears that "[t]he Debtor does not possess any assets for a Chapter 7 trustee to recover and liquidate." In this circumstance, therefore, the best interests of creditors appears to be for the case to be dismissed.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    LC Stahl LLC


    Chapter 11

    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISMISSING the case pursuant to 11

    U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(A), conditioned on the payment of the United States Trustee’s fees.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    LC Stahl LLC Represented By

    Stuart J Wald

    Movant(s):

    United States Trustee (RS) Represented By Everett L Green

    Abram Feuerstein esq

    2:00 PM

    6:17-15809


    Beatrice A Diaz


    Chapter 7


    #23.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion of Chapter 7 Trustee for Order Establishing Procedures for Sale of the Real Property Located at 619 Calle Cuesta, Watsonville, California 95076, Free and Clear of All Liens, Claims, Encumbrances and Other Interests Pursuant to Sections 105 and 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and Granting Related Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations in Support Thereof


    From: 7/17/19 EH       

    Docket 80

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/17/2019

    BACKGROUND

    On July 12, 2017, Beatrice Diaz ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Among the scheduled assets was certain real property located at 619 Calle Cuesta, Watsonville, CA 95076 (the "Property").

    On December 20, 2017, Trustee filed a complaint against Debtor’s non-filing spouse, Jose Diaz ("Defendant"), seeking: (1) a declaration that the Property constituted community property; (2) turnover of the Property; and (3) authority to sell Defendant’s interest in the Property. After Defendant failed to respond to the adversary complaint, Trustee moved for default. On May 22, 2018, the Court entered judgment adjudicating the Property to be community property and directing Defendant to turn over the property.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Beatrice A Diaz

    Chapter 7


    In January 2019, the Court entered two orders related to Trustee’s efforts to gain control over the Property. First, in the adversary proceeding, the Court granted Trustee’s motion for a writ of possession as to Defendant. Second, in the main bankruptcy case, the Court granted Trustee’s motion for turnover as to Debtor.


    On July 10, 2019, Trustee filed a motion seeking to establish procedures for the sale of the Property. Part of the reason for the filing of the instant motion is that the Property is subject to the Measure J Affordable Housing Program, which imposes a ceiling of $363,798 on the Property’s purchase price. Because the sale price of the Property is essentially fixed by a county voter initiative, the Trustee proposes a unique sale process which involves working with the county to post the listing, screen applicants, and then, ostensibly, randomly rank qualified bidders.


    The Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure do not delineate a legal standard to assess sale procedures. This Court employs a reasonableness test.

    Here, because the purchase price of the Property is essentially fixed, the bankruptcy estate would appear to not have any interest in which qualified applicant is selected as the purchaser. Therefore, assuming that the Property is sold at an amount not materially different than the maximum purchase price, the Court concludes that the sale procedures outlined in the motion are not unreasonable, and the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion in its entirety.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Beatrice A Diaz Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy

    Anthony A Friedman

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Beatrice A Diaz


    Chapter 7

    Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy

    Anthony A Friedman

    2:00 PM

    6:18-13057


    Desert Ice Castle, LLC


    Chapter 7


    #23.20 CONT Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy Between Chapter 7 Trustee, Debtor, Anthony Yue Ming Liu, Ice Castle, Inc. and Magic Ice, LLC Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019


    Advanced From: 7/31/19 EH       


    Docket 91

    Tentative Ruling:


    BACKGROUND


    Debtor Desert Ice Castle ("Debtor") filed a voluntary Ch. 7 petition on April 13, 2018. Creditor Andrzej Luczynski ("Creditor") filed two claims against Debtor, one for

    $3,200,000 related to the breach of joint venture between the two, and one for anticipated judgment from state court litigation for $1,218,135.54. Creditor’s associated company, Z&M Trading, Inc., also filed a claim against Debtor for attorney fees to be derived from the anticipated state court judgment.


    On January 31, 2019, the Ch. 7 Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Anthony Ming Liu ("Liu"), the principal of Debtor, for alleged pre-petition transfers from Debtor to Liu. Liu filed his own bankruptcy petition. On June 25, 2019, Trustee reached an allegedly global agreement with Liu, Z&M, Creditor, and Desert Ice Castle, which will apply in both this, and Liu’s case. The claimed primary terms of the agreement is the payment of $60,000 from Liu to Trustee, combined with a dismissal of the adversarial proceeding with prejudice, and the withdrawal of Creditor’s proofs of claim and Trustee’s proof of claim in Liu’s bankruptcy case.


    However, the actual settlement agreement provided has no signature from Creditor, and the agreement terms do not state that Creditor will engage in a mutual release of claims between him and Debtor, as alleged by Trustee, or that Creditor will withdraw his proofs of claims.

    On July 3, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to approve the compromise under Rule 9019.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Desert Ice Castle, LLC


    Chapter 7

    On July 25, 2019, the matter was advanced to July 30, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.


    DISCUSSION



    FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


    On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.


    Creditor’s claims are the vast bulk of pre-petition claims against Debtor, and are also the root of the adversarial proceeding between Trustee and Debtor. In addition, Trustee also claims that the agreement settles the controversy between Creditor and Debtor. While Creditor is not a party to the settlement agreement, the Court notes that the agreement is expressly conditioned on the withdrawal of Creditor’s proofs of claim. Otherwise, the Court finds that Trustee has sufficiently addressed the A&C Properties standard.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    7/30/2019

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Desert Ice Castle, LLC


    Chapter 7

    Service: Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT Trustee’s motion to approve compromise. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Desert Ice Castle, LLC Represented By Paul M Stoddard

    Movant(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

    Thomas J Eastmond

    Trustee(s):

    Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

    Thomas J Eastmond

    2:00 PM

    6:18-18339


    Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


    Chapter 11


    #24.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 37 by Claimant Franchise Tax Board


    From: 5/7/19, 6/25/19 EH   

    Docket 248

    *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/20/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    Movant(s):

    Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

    Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

    2:00 PM

    6:18-16908


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    #25.00 CONT Motion To Compel Payment Of Administrative Rent Or Immediate Rejection Of Lease And Related Relief

    (HOLDING DATE)


    From: 11/27/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19, 3/27/19, 5/1/19


    Also #26 EH   

    Docket 194

    Tentative Ruling:

    2/26/19

    BACKGROUND

    On August 15, 2018, Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On November 2, 2018, The H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation ("Berger Foundation") filed its motion to compel payment of administrative rent or immediate rejection of lease and related relief. On November 13, 2018, Debtor filed its opposition.

    The subject of the motion is a lease dated August 15, 2008, for certain nonresidential real property located in Palm Desert, California. According to Berger Foundation, "[p] ursuant to the terms of lease, should the Debtor continue to occupy the premises after August 14, 2018, the lease obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month," [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 2] a doubling of the contractual monthly rental obligation. Berger Foundation requests: (1) that Debtor be compelled to cure the default on the lease or surrender the premises; and (2) allowance of an administrative expense claim

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

    Chapter 11

    in the amount of $3,040.55 per day.


    Debtor’s opposition argued that: (1) the lease cannot be assumed or rejected because the lease expired the day before the petition date; and (2) because the lease expired prepetition, the legal basis for the requested administrative expense claim is invalid.


    On November 27, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the matter, and continue the hearing for three weeks for supplemental briefing. On December 18, 2018, the Court posted a tentative ruling prior to the continued hearing, indicating that it was inclined to hold that the lease terminated pre-petition, and, therefore, the lease was not an executory contract. The Court continued the matter again, allowing the parties the opportunity to further brief the matter, and to enable the parties to supplement the record to afford the Court the opportunity to assess Berger Foundation’s request for administrative rent.


    On January 18, 2019, Berger Foundation filed a supplement. On February 1, 2019, Debtor filed a response. Because Berger Foundation has not presented any new argument relating to 11 U.S.C. § 365, the Court is not inclined to modify its tentative, which is outlined in the first portion of the discussion section. Instead, the Court will address the parties’ arguments relating to 11 U.S.C. § 503.


    DISCUSSION



    I. 11 U.S.C. § 365


    The critical legal question at issue is whether the operative lease expired prepetition. Berger Foundation relies on 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) as the basis for both its requests, and that provision states:

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    The trustee shall timely perform all the obligations of the debtor, except those specified in section 365(b)(2), arising from and after the order for relief under any unexpired lease of nonresidential real property, until such lease is assumed or rejected, notwithstanding section 503(b)(1) of this title. The court may extend, for cause, the time for performance of any such obligation that arises within 60 days after the date of the order for relief, but the time for performance shall not be extended beyond such 60-day period. This subsection shall not be deemed to affect the trustee’s obligations under the provisions of subsection (b) or (f) of the section. Acceptance of any such performance does not constitute waiver or relinquishment of the lessor’s rights under such lease or under this title.


    (emphasis added).


    As a general rule, an expired lease is no longer executory, and, therefore, is no longer assumable, if the lease expired prepetition. See, e.g., In re Acorn Invs., 8 B.R. 506, 509-10 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1981). Therefore, the Court must determine whether the lease at issue expired prepetition. See Robinson v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 54 F.3d 316, 320 (7th Cir. 1995) ("the federal law allowing ‘unexpired’ leases to be assumed calls for a determination whether a lease has ended under state law."). Here, Debtor argues that the lease expired pre-petition, resulting in a holdover tenancy, in which no privity of contract exists, while Berger Foundation argues that the lease became a month to month tenancy and, therefore, was not expired. While the parties appear to be agree on the operative legal standard, the parties disagree regarding how that standard applies to the facts here


    Both parties refer to CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, which states:


    If a lessee of real property remains in possession thereof after the expiration of the hiring, and the lessor accepts rent from him, the parties are presumed to have renewed the hiring on the same terms and for the same time, not

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

    exceeding one month when the rent is payable monthly, nor in any case one year.


    Chapter 11



    As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it appears the above legal provision should not actually be applicable to the instant situation. Specifically, CAL. CIV. CODE

    § 1940(a), (c) states the following:


    1. Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter shall apply to all persons who hire dwelling units located within this state included tenants, boarders, lodgers, and others, however denominated.


      (c) "Dwelling unit" means a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household.


      Here, the lease at issue was a commercial lease which would remove the lease from the purview of § 1945 based upon the plain language of § 1940. Nevertheless, the Court notes that there is ample caselaw, some of which is cited by the parties, in which California courts have applied § 1945 to commercial property. Although it is not clear to this Court why that section is inapplicable to the instant situation, the Court will defer to the state law courts on this issue of state law.


      Ultimately, the argument of Berger Foundation boils down to the following:


      In this case, after the expiration of the Lease terms (August 14, 2018), Debtor continued to occupy the Premises. Berger continued to accept the Debtor as a tenant and took no action to terminate the Debtor’s leasehold interest in the Premises. To the contrary, as this Court’s record reflects, from the outset, Berger has been focusing on receiving rent payments and, in fact, received post-petition payments of not less than $15,000 as of the date of this Reply.

      Clearly, pursuant to Civil Code § 1945 and applicable California authority, the

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties

      Lease converted to a month-to-month tenancy after August 14, 2018.


      Chapter 11



      [Dkt. No. 278, pg. 3]. Debtor’s argument, on the other hand, appears to be that Berger Foundation’s actions in this case simply do not reflect clear consent to Debtor’s continued possession of the premises.


      First, there appears to be a timing issue which has not been identified by the parties. The operative lease expired, by its own terms, on August 14, 2018. The instant bankruptcy was filed on August 15, 2018. Therefore, assuming, arguendo, that rent was paid and accepted in a matter which would trigger the statutory presumption in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945, such event would have occurred after the petition date. City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) ("The statute provides the landlord’s consent to the holding over is implied if he accepts rent from the tenant after the expiration of the lease. This consent to the holding over must be established before the statutory presumption of the same terms becomes effective.") (emphasis added). Therefore, the lease at issue would have been, as of the petition date, expired and not assumable. Quite simply, on the record before the Court, it is implausible that Berger Foundation could have undertaken any action in the fraction of the day before the instant bankruptcy filing which would have indicated consent to the creation of a month-to-month tenancy.


      Furthermore, outside of the bankruptcy law issues raised above, Berger Foundation’s position does not seem to be compatible with state law. Quite simply, the presumptions outlined in CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 are analogous to contractual principles in common law. By remaining in possession of the property, and tendering a rental payment, a holdover tenant is making an offer; by accepting such tender, the landlord manifests his assent to such offer. Berger Foundation seems to be positing that the payment of any rent whatsoever, even a single dollar, subsequently accepted by the landlord, results in the extension of the lease terms on the original contractual terms.


      Berger Foundation’s argument, however, is inconsistent with fundamental contractual principles, for, in the case of a minimal rental payment, it cannot be said that either party has made an offer, accepted by the other party, to renew the original lease terms. At best, the landlord’s implied acquiescence may be construed as an offer, yet the tenant’s tender of a minimal rental payment can only be interpreted as a counter-offer,

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11

      since such a tender would be materially inconsistent with the terms of the offer. If the landlord accepts this reduced tender, the terms agreed upon must be construed as those set forth in the counter-offer, a principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076:


      The person to whom a tender is made must, at the time, specify any objection he may have to the money, instrument, or property, or he must be deemed to have waived it; and if the objection be to the amount of money, the terms of the instrument, or the amount or kind of property, he must specify the amount, terms, or kind which he requires, or be precluded from objecting afterwards.


      See also Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940) ("It is now settled by these cases that where the tenant tenders, and the landlord accepts, as full payment of the rent, a less monthly rental than that reserved in the lease, he cannot later recover the unpaid balance of the rent reserved.")


      While the above principle, a principle of estoppel, is properly subject to the Court’s consideration of equities, such consideration would simply not change the fact that a reduced monthly rental payment cannot be considered acquiescence to a renewal of the original contractual terms. In the absence of such mutual agreement to be bound to the original terms, there simply cannot be contractual privity.


      Finally, the Court notes that the operation of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 is to create a rebuttable presumption that the least has been extended. Assuming, arguendo, that the bankruptcy and contract law issues noted above were not present, it appears probable that such a presumption would be rebutted in the instant case. The Court is not aware of any action taken by Debtor that would support a conclusion that Debtor intended to renew the lease on the original terms, and Berger Foundation has made repeated statements which would be incompatible with the presumption in § 1945. For instance, in the instant motion Berger Foundation made the following statements, which are implicitly and explicitly more compatible with a holdover tenancy than a month-to-month tenancy:

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


      Chapter 11

      -"Since the filing of this case, the Debtor has continued, and continues, to occupy the Premises, yet has failed to pay the rental obligation due and owing." [Dkt. No 194, pg. 2 and 4]


      -"Based on the fact that the Debtor remained as a holdover tenant, and pursuant to the terms of the Lease, the rental obligation increases to approximately $91,216.50 per month." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 4 and 10] (emphasis added).


      -"Here, the Debtor has made no payments while continuing to occupy the Premises." [Dkt. No. 194, pg. 6].


      For the reasons outlined above, the Court concludes that the lease in question was expired as of the petition date because nothing in the record indicates that Berger Foundation provided consent to continued possession of the premises in the less than one-day period between the expiration of the lease and the instant bankruptcy filing. To the extent that Berger Foundation argues that postpetition acts retroactively revived the original lease terms, such retroactive revival would seem to be incompatible with City v. Hart, 175 Cal. App. 3d 92, 94 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).

      Furthermore, because Debtor did not remotely act in accordance with the original lease terms, it cannot be said that Debtor actions constituted a renewal of those terms; if any lease was entered into postpetition, it must have been on substantially different terms, which would require notice and a hearing. Additionally, even if the statutory presumption of CAL. CIV. CODE § 1945 were applicable in the instant situation, the Court concludes that such presumption would likely be rebutted based on the fact that Debtor did not act in accordance with the original terms, and based on Berger Foundation’s explicit characterization of Debtor as a holdover tenant.


      II. 11 U.S.C. § 503


      11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) states:


    2. After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including –

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11

    (1)(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate including –


    "An administrative rent claim under this standard is value ‘under an objective worth standard that measures the fair and reasonable value of the lease.’" In re Pac.-Atl.

    Trading Co., 27 F.3d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Dant & Russell, Inc., 853 F.2d 700, 707 (9th Cir. 1988)). "The rent reserved in the lease is presumptive evidence of fair and reasonable value, but the presumption may be rebutted by demonstrating that the reasonable worth of the lease differs from the contract rate." In re Thompson, 788 F.2d 560, 563 (9th Cir. 1986). "Where the debtor or trustee only uses a portion of the lease property, however, he must pay an administrative expense only for that portion of the property." Id. at 562. The Court continued the previous hearing for the parties to provide evidence and argument regarding the objective value of the portion of the leased property utilized by Debtor.


    Debtor first, very briefly, argues that the parties have implicitly agreed to a rental rate of $5,000 per month, and that that amount should be used in calculating Berger Foundation’s administrative claim. Debtor appears to base this argument on the Court’s tentative ruling for the hearing of December 18, 2018; specifically, Debtor refers to Taylor v. Taylor, 39 Cal. App. 2d 518, 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940). The Court rejects Debtor’s approach. The relevant language in the Court’s tentative ruling is used to illustrate that, in the context of a holdover tenancy, the original contractual terms do not necessarily control when the parties have acted in a manner which is materially inconsistent with those terms. Importantly, here, the $5,000 payment discussed by Debtor is not necessarily a "rental" payment, but is more accurately characterized as an "adequate protection" payment. Adequate protection payments may be in amounts substantially different than the actual amount due – for instant, an adequate protection payment may be interest only, or may attempt to estimate the depreciation of the estate, in order to protect the secured creditor’s interest.

    Furthermore, it would not be equitable to apply the estoppel principle codified in CAL. CIV. PRO. § 2076 in the context of bankruptcy, where the lender does have the ability to reject the payment and, without constraint, exercise its traditional state law rights.


    Debtor’s primary argument is that the contract rate of the lease is an "inappropriate measure" of the objective worth of the lease because Debtor did not use the entirety of the leased premises. Specifically, Debtor argues that it only utilized 4,000 square feet

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11

    of the leased premises. Berger Foundation, on the other hand, makes two arguments in response: (1) that the entirety of the premises were necessary for Debtor to maintain its CMS license; and (2) that Debtor actually utilized the majority of the premises. In support of its argument, Debtor has provided declarations attesting that Debtor only used 4,000 square feet, and that, after moving into a smaller space, Debtor did not lose any funding, or, presumably, its license. Berger Foundation has provided a declaration which includes the vague statement that Debtor "continued to utilize the majority of the Premises."


    The record provided to the Court is, unfortunately, unclear and incapable of providing the necessary evidentiary framework for a precise mathematical calculation. First, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether Debtor used only 4,000 square feet.

    Second, and more importantly, the evidence seems to suggest, but is still unclear, that the Debtor required all the space to maintain its license (or at least thought it had to). Debtor’s response states the following: "Although it is true the Debtor was concerned it might lose funding if it lost its physical address in Palm Desert by hastily vacating the Premises, a belief that the Debtor needed a physical address for funding does not trump the Ninth Circuit requirement that the Debtor actually use the entirety of the Premises. In fact, Berger does not cite to any authority for this proposition." [Dkt. No. 323, pg. 10, lines 6-10].


    On the record before it, the Court concludes Debtor has failed to demonstrate it did not use the entirety of the premises. More specifically, the Court concludes that there are a variety of ways that a space can be "used," and that that term is not limited to physical occupancy by the tenant. While, again, the record before the Court is less than clear, it appears that Debtor represented that it had control over, and occupancy of, the entirety of the premises for purposes of its licensing and funding. As a result, it appears Debtor continued to "use" the leased premises for some purposes, even if such use did not necessarily amount to physical use of the entirety of the premises for normal business operations. Because Debtor has not established that the use of the full premises was not reasonably necessary to preserve the estate, the Court rejects Debtor’s attempt to reduce the space used to 4,000 square foot. As a result, the Court concludes that Debtor has not rebutted the presumption that the contract rate represents the reasonable value of the leased premises used.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11

    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of allowing Berger Foundation an administrative claim in the amount of $172,543.53, less amounts received, and DENY the remainder of the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

    Movant(s):

    The H. N. and Frances C. Berger Represented By

    David B Golubchik

    2:00 PM

    6:18-16908


    Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


    Chapter 11


    #26.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/13/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19, 3/27/19, 5/1/19


    Also #25 EH   

    Docket 4


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

    David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #27.00 Third Interim Fee Application for Compensation for Nicholas W Gebelt, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 4/4/2019 to 6/30/2019, Fee: $24,570.00, Expenses: $569.74


    Also #28 - #30


    EH       


    Docket 160

    *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

    7/1/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #28.00 Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedures Rule 9019


    Also #27 - #30


    EH       


    Docket 156


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    Movant(s):

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan RE: [102] Amended Chapter 11 Plan 75 Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization


    Also #27 - #30


    EH   


    Docket 102


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:18-10628


    Markus Anthony Boyd


    Chapter 11


    #30.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 3/20/18, 8/21/18, 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 2/5/19, 5/7/19 Also #27 - #29

    EH   


    Docket 16


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

    2:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #31.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Causes of Action .


    MOVANT: ANDRZEJ LUCZYNSKI AND Z&M TRADING, INC. From: 4/16/19, 4/30/19, 5/21/19, 6/11/19, 6/25/19, 7/16/19 Also #32 - #36

    EH   


    Docket 38

    Tentative Ruling: 4/30/2019

    Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.


    On February 19, 2019, Anthony Yue Ming Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Andrzej Luczynski ("Movant") as the holder of an unsecured claim of $1,380,000 relating to a civil lawsuit.


    On March 12, 2019, Movant filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for tortious exclusion of joint venturer, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and wrongful eviction. A state court hearing on Debtor’s objections to the tentative decision and proposed judgment had been scheduled for February 20, 2019, but was ultimately postponed due to the instant bankruptcy filing. It appears from the contents of the motion that Movant is only requesting to have the state court enter judgment, thereby liquidating Movant’s claim.


    On April 2, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The crux of Debtor’s opposition is that the relief from the automatic stay is unnecessary because Movant’s claim has been

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    effectively liquidated. Debtor notes that "[t]he only issue remaining is a determination of any costs and attorney’s fees, which Debtor has attempted to review for reasonableness in hopes that the parties could avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses regarding the same." [Dkt. No. 49, pg. 4, lines 10-12]. On April 9, 2019, Movant filed a reply, effectively arguing that Debtor’s opposition does not contain a legal basis upon which relief from stay could be denied.


    When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:

    1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

    2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

    3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."

    In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:

    The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


    Here, the Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. First, the relief requested would result in a complete resolution of the issues. Debtor’s argument that relief from stay is not necessary to resolve the issue, because the issue could be resolved through the claim objection process in bankruptcy court, is not persuasive to the Court because it does not directly address the first Curtis factor and because, presumably, the state court is in a better position to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceedings. Likewise, the second factor weighs in favor of the relief requested because the entry of a judgment in state court will not interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Debtor has not raised a plausible argument contending otherwise. A choice by Debtor to possibly incur attorney fees arguing the amount of Movant’s fees and costs incurred in the state court proceeding does not constitute interference with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, the Court finds that the tenth through twelfth Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from stay, because the state court proceeding progressed to the point where it was ready for trial, and the state court is in a better position to judge the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceeding.


    The Court finds that the third through nonth Curtis factors are largely irrelevant in this situation and do not materially affect the Court’s analysis. Additionally, the Court is not inclined to find that the instant bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. Movant’s only argument made to support a bad faith finding is that the instant case was filed on the eve of the anticipated state court judgment. Noting that Debtor scheduled Movant’s claim and does not appear to be attempting to undermine the state court proceeding, the Court cannot conclude that Debtor is acting on bad faith simply because he is attempting to satisfy Movant’s claim through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.


    The Court is inclined to GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY request for relief under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    Courtesy NEF Represented By Dawn M Coulson Paul M Stoddard Mark W Edelstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #32.00 Debtor's Motion to Dismiss Bankruptcy Case Also #31 - #36

    EH      


    Docket 97

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/19

    BACKGROUND


    On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


    The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


    On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with all primary creditors, specifically (a) Luczynski and Z&M;

    1. Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      Also on July 9, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. Trustee has filed a condition non-opposition, asking that: (a) the settlement payment be made prior to the lodging of a dismissal order; and (b) Luczynski withdraw the proofs of claims filed in the bankruptcy case of Desert Ice Castle, LLC.


      DISCUSSION



      11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) states:


      Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c), on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause unless the court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.


      Section 1112(b)(4) provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of cause. While Debtor is a party in interest pursuant to § 1109(b), the examples of cause outlined in § 1112(b)(4) are addressing to a non-debtor party. When a Chapter 11 debtor satisfies all claims against the estate without the use of a plan, however, the creditors no longer have any interest in the bankruptcy case moving forward. Additionally, in this case, Debtor has waived discharge, so, likewise, the Debtor would appear to have no interest in the case moving forward. Therefore, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISMISSING the case on the conditions set forth in Debtor’s motion and Trustee’s conditional non-opposition, and subject to the issues raised in the Court’s tentative ruling relating to the compromise motions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-11267


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      #33.00 Debtor's Motion to Approve Compormise with Mark Edelstein Also #31 - #36

      EH      


      Docket 95

      Tentative Ruling:

      7/30/19

      BACKGROUND


      On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


      The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


      On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with (a) Luczynski and Z&M; (b) Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. The Court did not receive any timely opposition to the compromise motions.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11

      The pertinent facts of the three compromises are as follows:


      1. Debtor to pay Lucynski and Z&M $3,156,621.53, with 7% interest, as follows:

        1. $250,000 within one week of the effective date of settlement; (b) $250,000 within sixty days of first payment; (c) $250,000 within sixty days of second payment; and (d) $58,000/month thereafter until satisfying the total amount. The payment obligations of Debtor are to be secured by a deed of trust against certain real property of Debtor.


      2. Debtor to pay Trustee $60,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


      3. Debtor to pay Edelstein $45,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


    The settlement resolves all claims against Debtor, and contains a mutual release of all claims, and a dismissal of all pending actions. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.


    DISCUSSION


    I. Legal Standard for Approving Compromise


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), Debtor has all the rights and duties of a trustee. Rule 9019(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to approve a compromise or settlement on the trustee's motion and after notice and a hearing. The bankruptcy court must consider all "factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968). In other words, the bankruptcy court must find that the settlement is "fair and equitable" in order to approve it. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986).

    In conducting this inquiry, the bankruptcy court must consider the following factors:

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Id.


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    1. the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises.


      Chapter 11


      The bankruptcy court enjoys broad discretion in approving a compromise because it "is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness [of it] " United

      States v. Alaska Nat'l Bank (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). As stated in A & C Props.:


      The purpose of a compromise agreement is to allow the trustee and the creditors to avoid the expenses and burdens associated with litigating sharply contested and dubious claims. The law favors compromise and not litigation for its own sake, and as long as the bankruptcy court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed.

      Id. (citations omitted).


      The factual situation here is rather unique because Debtor has reached settlements with all of the significant creditors in this bankruptcy case, while asserting that he will pay off the two small creditors in full. Therefore, all creditors: (a) will be paid off in full; or (b) have expressly consented to the treatment of their claim. As a result, the final A&C factor, the interests of creditors, which in this situation is the predominant concern when assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, strongly, probably conclusively weighs in favor of settlement. As noted by Debtor, the second A&C factor is inapplicable here because Debtor is not trying to collect from the other parties to the settlement. And the first and third factors would appear to also weigh in favor of settlement, given that Debtor was faced with a tentative ruling indicating that the Court was inclined to rule against him, and because the amount of the claims at issue would likely cause significant litigation.


      There is one technical issue that remains, applicable to both the three compromise motions, as well as the concurrently scheduled motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11

      Debtor, by seeking a dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy cases and by settling with the three primary creditors, is, in effect, either proposing a sub rosa plan or seeking a structured dismissal (or both); such a proposal cannot violate the Code’s priority scheme. See, e.g., In re Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 780 F.2d 1223, 1226 (5th Cir. 1986) ("§ 363 does not authorize a debtor and the bankruptcy court ‘to short circuit the requirements of a reorganization plan by establishing the terms of the plan sub rosa in connection’ with a proposed transaction."); see also Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 984 (2017) ("The priority system applicable to those distributions has long been considered fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code's operation. The importance of the priority system leads us to expect more than simple statutory silence if, and when, Congress were to intend a major departure. Put somewhat more directly, we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans.").


      Debtor seems to have anticipated this issue, noting in all three compromise motions and the motion to dismiss, that he would pay off the two non-settling creditors who filed proofs of claims, and also identifying the various scheduled creditors who did not file proofs of claims. There are, however, two remaining issues that have not been resolved. First, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(b)(1) provides that, in Chapter 11 cases, a creditor whose claim is scheduled by Debtor, generally need not file a proof of claim, but may rely on the amount admitted by Debtor instead. Debtor’s declaration in the motion to dismiss addresses this to some degree, but it is not sufficient to overcome the prohibitions against paying outside of the priority scheme. Second, the claims bar date for non-governmental claims is August 19, 2019, and, therefore, has not yet expired, potentially allowing for the filing of additional priority claims.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      Debtor to address the two issues raised in the preceding paragraph, and, specifically, whether and how remaining creditors should be paid.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Debtor(s):


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu

      Party Information


      Chapter 11

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-11267


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      #34.00 Debtor's Motion to Approve Compromise with Andrzelj Luczynski and Z&M Trading, Inc.


      Also #31 - #36


      EH      


      Docket 96

      Tentative Ruling:

      7/30/19

      BACKGROUND


      On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


      The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


      On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with (a) Luczynski and Z&M; (b) Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. The Court did not receive any timely opposition to the compromise motions.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      The pertinent facts of the three compromises are as follows:


      1. Debtor to pay Lucynski and Z&M $3,156,621.53, with 7% interest, as follows:

        1. $250,000 within one week of the effective date of settlement; (b) $250,000 within sixty days of first payment; (c) $250,000 within sixty days of second payment; and (d) $58,000/month thereafter until satisfying the total amount. The payment obligations of Debtor are to be secured by a deed of trust against certain real property of Debtor.


      2. Debtor to pay Trustee $60,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


      3. Debtor to pay Edelstein $45,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


    The settlement resolves all claims against Debtor, and contains a mutual release of all claims, and a dismissal of all pending actions. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.


    DISCUSSION


    1. Legal Standard for Approving Compromise


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), Debtor has all the rights and duties of a trustee. Rule 9019(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to approve a compromise or settlement on the trustee's motion and after notice and a hearing. The bankruptcy court must consider all "factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968). In other words, the bankruptcy court must find that the settlement is "fair and equitable" in order to approve it. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986).

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      In conducting this inquiry, the bankruptcy court must consider the following factors:

      1. the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises.


    Id.

    The bankruptcy court enjoys broad discretion in approving a compromise because it "is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness [of it] " United

    States v. Alaska Nat'l Bank (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). As stated in A & C Props.:


    The purpose of a compromise agreement is to allow the trustee and the creditors to avoid the expenses and burdens associated with litigating sharply contested and dubious claims. The law favors compromise and not litigation for its own sake, and as long as the bankruptcy court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed.

    Id. (citations omitted).


    The factual situation here is rather unique because Debtor has reached settlements with all of the significant creditors in this bankruptcy case, while asserting that he will pay off the two small creditors in full. Therefore, all creditors: (a) will be paid off in full; or (b) have expressly consented to the treatment of their claim. As a result, the final A&C factor, the interests of creditors, which in this situation is the predominant concern when assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, strongly, probably conclusively weighs in favor of settlement. As noted by Debtor, the second A&C factor is inapplicable here because Debtor is not trying to collect from the other parties to the settlement. And the first and third factors would appear to also weigh in favor of settlement, given that Debtor was faced with a tentative ruling indicating that the Court was inclined to rule against him, and because the amount of the claims at issue would likely cause significant litigation.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    There is one technical issue that remains, applicable to both the three compromise motions, as well as the concurrently scheduled motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. Debtor, by seeking a dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy cases and by settling with the three primary creditors, is, in effect, either proposing a sub rosa plan or seeking a structured dismissal (or both); such a proposal cannot violate the Code’s priority scheme. See, e.g., In re Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 780 F.2d 1223, 1226 (5th Cir. 1986) ("§ 363 does not authorize a debtor and the bankruptcy court ‘to short circuit the requirements of a reorganization plan by establishing the terms of the plan sub rosa in connection’ with a proposed transaction."); see also Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 984 (2017) ("The priority system applicable to those distributions has long been considered fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code's operation. The importance of the priority system leads us to expect more than simple statutory silence if, and when, Congress were to intend a major departure. Put somewhat more directly, we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans.").


    Debtor seems to have anticipated this issue, noting in all three compromise motions and the motion to dismiss, that he would pay off the two non-settling creditors who filed proofs of claims, and also identifying the various scheduled creditors who did not file proofs of claims. There are, however, two remaining issues that have not been resolved. First, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(b)(1) provides that, in Chapter 11 cases, a creditor whose claim is scheduled by Debtor, generally need not file a proof of claim, but may rely on the amount admitted by Debtor instead. Debtor’s declaration in the motion to dismiss addresses this to some degree, but it is not sufficient to overcome the prohibitions against paying outside of the priority scheme. Second, the claims bar date for non-governmental claims is August 19, 2019, and, therefore, has not yet expired, potentially allowing for the filing of additional priority claims.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    Debtor to address the two issues raised in the preceding paragraph, and, specifically, whether and how remaining creditors should be paid.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #35.00 Debtor's Motion to Approve Compromise with Trustee for Chapter 7 Estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC


    Also #31 - #36


    EH       


    Docket 94

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/19

    BACKGROUND


    On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


    The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


    On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with (a) Luczynski and Z&M; (b) Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. The Court did not receive any timely opposition to the compromise motions.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    The pertinent facts of the three compromises are as follows:


    1. Debtor to pay Lucynski and Z&M $3,156,621.53, with 7% interest, as follows:

      1. $250,000 within one week of the effective date of settlement; (b) $250,000 within sixty days of first payment; (c) $250,000 within sixty days of second payment; and (d) $58,000/month thereafter until satisfying the total amount. The payment obligations of Debtor are to be secured by a deed of trust against certain real property of Debtor.


    2. Debtor to pay Trustee $60,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


    3. Debtor to pay Edelstein $45,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


    The settlement resolves all claims against Debtor, and contains a mutual release of all claims, and a dismissal of all pending actions. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.


    DISCUSSION


    1. Legal Standard for Approving Compromise


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), Debtor has all the rights and duties of a trustee. Rule 9019(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to approve a compromise or settlement on the trustee's motion and after notice and a hearing. The bankruptcy court must consider all "factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968). In other words, the bankruptcy court must find that the settlement is "fair and equitable" in order to approve it. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986).

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      In conducting this inquiry, the bankruptcy court must consider the following factors:

      1. the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises.


    Id.

    The bankruptcy court enjoys broad discretion in approving a compromise because it "is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness [of it] " United

    States v. Alaska Nat'l Bank (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). As stated in A & C Props.:


    The purpose of a compromise agreement is to allow the trustee and the creditors to avoid the expenses and burdens associated with litigating sharply contested and dubious claims. The law favors compromise and not litigation for its own sake, and as long as the bankruptcy court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed.

    Id. (citations omitted).


    The factual situation here is rather unique because Debtor has reached settlements with all of the significant creditors in this bankruptcy case, while asserting that he will pay off the two small creditors in full. Therefore, all creditors: (a) will be paid off in full; or (b) have expressly consented to the treatment of their claim. As a result, the final A&C factor, the interests of creditors, which in this situation is the predominant concern when assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, strongly, probably conclusively weighs in favor of settlement. As noted by Debtor, the second A&C factor is inapplicable here because Debtor is not trying to collect from the other parties to the settlement. And the first and third factors would appear to also weigh in favor of settlement, given that Debtor was faced with a tentative ruling indicating that the Court was inclined to rule against him, and because the amount of the claims at issue would likely cause significant litigation.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    There is one technical issue that remains, applicable to both the three compromise motions, as well as the concurrently scheduled motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. Debtor, by seeking a dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy cases and by settling with the three primary creditors, is, in effect, either proposing a sub rosa plan or seeking a structured dismissal (or both); such a proposal cannot violate the Code’s priority scheme. See, e.g., In re Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 780 F.2d 1223, 1226 (5th Cir. 1986) ("§ 363 does not authorize a debtor and the bankruptcy court ‘to short circuit the requirements of a reorganization plan by establishing the terms of the plan sub rosa in connection’ with a proposed transaction."); see also Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 984 (2017) ("The priority system applicable to those distributions has long been considered fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code's operation. The importance of the priority system leads us to expect more than simple statutory silence if, and when, Congress were to intend a major departure. Put somewhat more directly, we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans.").


    Debtor seems to have anticipated this issue, noting in all three compromise motions and the motion to dismiss, that he would pay off the two non-settling creditors who filed proofs of claims, and also identifying the various scheduled creditors who did not file proofs of claims. There are, however, two remaining issues that have not been resolved. First, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(b)(1) provides that, in Chapter 11 cases, a creditor whose claim is scheduled by Debtor, generally need not file a proof of claim, but may rely on the amount admitted by Debtor instead. Debtor’s declaration in the motion to dismiss addresses this to some degree, but it is not sufficient to overcome the prohibitions against paying outside of the priority scheme. Second, the claims bar date for non-governmental claims is August 19, 2019, and, therefore, has not yet expired, potentially allowing for the filing of additional priority claims.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    Debtor to address the two issues raised in the preceding paragraph, and, specifically, whether and how remaining creditors should be paid.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #36.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 3/26/19; 6/25/19, 7/16/19 Also #31 - #35

    EH   


    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13127


    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


    Chapter 11


    #37.00 Motion for substantive consolidation of debtors' estates 6:19-bk-13127-MH (Lead Case) with 6:19-bk-13130-MH; 6:19-bk-13131-MH; 6:19-bk-13132-MH; 6:19-bk-13133-MH


    Also #38 & #39 EH       

    Docket 121

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/19

    BACKGROUND

    On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019. On April 23, 2019, Debtors filed motions to consolidate the cases. Debtors also filed an application shortening time, however, the Court denied the application, and the motions to consolidate were ultimately set for hearing on June 4, 2019. At the hearings of June 4, 2019, the Court denied the motions to consolidate without prejudice.

    On July 9, 2019, Debtors filed a second motion for substantive consolidation. The primary grounds for substantive consolidation remain unchanged -- that Debtors are controlled by the same two individuals, Paul & Pamela Shanabarger (collectively, the "Shanabargers"), and that the Shanabargers "have admittedly historically failed to observe corporate formalities in the conduct of their business as between themselves, sharing and co-mingling funds extensively, routinely transferring funds between the entities as needed and without adhering to corporate formalities." [Dkt. No 121, pg.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    2].


    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


    Chapter 11



    Debtors have now added an additional argument in support of substantive consolidation: UST’s objection to the employment application of Debtors’ counsel, Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel"), on the grounds that each of the individual corporations may have conflicting and adverse interests. Additionally, California Bank & Trust filed a similar limited objection to the employment of Counsel. Debtors submit that, in the event the cases are not substantively consolidated, forcing each individual Debtor to obtain separate counsel would result in significantly increased administrative costs, severely burdening Debtors.


    On July 16, 2019, the Court received a limited opposition from California Bank & Trust, and an opposition from National Cooperative Bank. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed their reply.


    DISCUSSION



    The Ninth Circuit has recently reiterated that:


    To determine whether substantive consolidation is appropriate, a bankruptcy court evaluates "(i) whether creditors dealt with the entities as a single economic unit and did not rely on their separate identity in extending credit; or (ii) whether the affairs of the debtors are so entangled that consolidation will benefit all creditors. The sole aim of this analysis is fairness to all creditors.


    Matter of Transwest Resort Props., Inc., 881 F.3d 724, 732 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted); see also In re Bonham, 229 F.3d 750, 771 (9th Cir. 2000) ("In either case, the bankruptcy court must in essence determine that the assets of all of the consolidated parties are substantially the same."). And the Ninth Circuit has

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


    Chapter 11

    previously stated that, when applying this test:


    The presence of either factor is a sufficient basis to order substantive consolidation. The first factor, reliance on the separate credit of the entity, is based on the consideration that lenders structure their loans according to their expectations regarding the borrower and do not anticipate either having the assets of a more sound company available in the case of insolvency or having the creditors of a less sound debtor compete for the borrower’s assets. Consolidation under the second factor, entanglement of the debtor’s affairs, is justified only where the time and expense necessary even to attempt to unscramble them is so substantial as to threaten the realization of any net assets for all the creditors or where no accurate identification and allocation of assets is possible.


    In re Bonham, 229 F.3d at 766. Furthermore, "substantive consolidation should be used sparingly and in keeping with its equitable nature." In re R&S St. Rose Lenders, LLC, 756 Fed. Appx. 731, 733 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted). "The party seeking to consolidate entities has the burden of establishing either allegation." In re Howland, 674 Fed. Appx. 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2017).


    The fundamental problem with Debtors’ renewed request for substantive consolidation is that it appears that the only new evidence presented by Debtors – that UST has objected to the employment application of Counsel on, primarily, the basis that the individual debtors may have adverse interests – is not relevant to the legal test to be applied by this Court. As the Third Circuit has previously stated: "Mere benefit to the administration of the case (for example, allowing a court to simplify a case by avoiding other issues or to make postpetition accounting more convenient) is hardly a harm calling substantive consolidation into play." In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 211 (3rd Cir. 2005).


    Here, Debtors do not appear to have raised material evidence to satisfy the first step of the Bonham test (that creditors relied on the entity as a single economic unit), instead focusing on the second factor, the entanglement of the financial affairs of Debtors.

    While there is some evidence to submit a finding that Debtor has satisfied the second factor, it does not appear that there is any new evidence to warrant a different ruling

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


    Chapter 11

    from the Court. Quite simply, as the Ninth Circuit stated in In re Bonham, the remedy sought should be used sparingly and only when affairs are so "excessively entangled" that "consolidation will benefit all creditors." 229 F.3d 750 at 766. Here, that showing has not been made.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13127


    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


    Chapter 11


    #38.00 Application to Employ Rosenstein & Associates as Bankruptcy Counsel Also #37 & #39

    EH       


    Docket 76

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019

    BACKGROUND

    On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019.

    On May 24, 2019, Debtors filed an application to employ bankruptcy counsel, seeking to employ Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel") retroactive to April 24, 2019. On June 7, 2019, UST filed its objection, arguing that the "extensive inter-company transactions" of the Debtors "may create potential and/or actual conflicts that may preclude the Firm from providing joint representation. [Dkt. No 95, pg. 2]. UST requests that: (a) Debtors amended their statement of financial affairs to disclose all inter-company transaction; (b) Counsel supplement its Rule 2014 disclosures; and (c) supplemental briefing be allowed regarding whether Counsel is "disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327 and whether Counsel complied with the disclosure requirements of Rule 2014." On June 10, 2019, California Bank & Trust filed a limited opposition, requesting that any employment order: (a) require Debtors to employ separate counsel with respect to any matter in which the individual Debtors have adverse interests; and (b) require Counsel to separately track the time and

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.

    Chapter 11

    expenses incurred on behalf of each individual debtor. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed a reply, agreeing to the conditions set forth in the limited opposition filed by California Bank & Trust, but not directly addressing the concerns raised by UST.

    DISCUSSION


    FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2014(a) states:


    An order approving the employment of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or § 1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee or committee. The application shall be filed and, unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, a copy of the application shall be transmitted by the applicant to the United States trustee. The application shall state the specific facts showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation, and, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, all of the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.


    Here, Counsel has adequately disclosed that he is seeking employment for each of the five different debtor corporations. While the objection of UST is cursory, it would appear that UST is requesting Counsel to make clear the extent of the inter-company transactions. The Court finds this to be a reasonable request, especially given that the future administration of the cases may be substantially affected by the magnitude of the transactions.


    UST also requests that the Court "permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


    Chapter 11

    on whether Counsel is disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327." [Dkt. No. 73, pg. 3]. As noted by California Bank & Trust, the Court applies a two-pronged test in reviewing employment under 11 U.S.C. § 327, reviewing: (1) disinterestedness; and (2) whether the applicant holds or represents an interest adverse to the estate. See In re Treasures, Inc., 2015 WL at 925957 at *15 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

    2015)., UST & California Bank & Trust suggest that the inter-company transactions may result in a situation where Counsel would represent interests adverse to a bankruptcy estate that Counsel simultaneously represents.


    The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has outlined the definition of "adverse interest":


    The reported cases have defined what it means to hold an adverse interest as follows:

    1. to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.


      To represent an adverse interest means to serve as an attorney for an entity holding such an adverse interest.


      In re Tevis, 347 B.R. 679, 688 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court notes that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel then quoted, and briefly discussed California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310, which is the rule governing of conflicts of interest. The Court notes that this rule allows conflicts to be waived by the informed written consent of client; it is not clear, however, that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel applied this rule, or considered it relevant to the analysis under § 327. The Court does note, however, that accepting representation where even a potential conflict is present requires informed written consent under Professional Rule 3-310.


      In the context of 11 U.S.C. § 327, where a proposed counsel clearly has a potential conflict, but may not have an actual conflict, or may reasonably be able to limit representation to avoid an actual conflict, there are two different approaches the Court

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11

      could take. First, the Court could error on the side of caution and conclude that representation is simply improper. For example, the Court in In re Lee, 94 B.R. 172, 180 (Bankr C.D. Cal. 1988) stated the following:


      Accordingly, this Court adopts a presumption for two or more related cases, that it is improper to appoint (1) a single trustee, (2) a single creditors’ committee, or (3) the same counsel for the trustees, for the creditors’ committee or for the debtors in possession under any of the following circumstances:


      1. Where creditors of the debtors have dealt with such debtors as an economic unit (which may be reflected in guaranties and subordination agreements);


      2. Where there is a substantial overlap of creditors;


      3. Where the affairs of the respective debtors (as reflected in inter-debtor accounts, jointly owned assets, guarantees, subordination agreements, or shared officers, directors or owners) appear to be substantially entangled;


      4. Where assets have been transferred from one debtor to another in transactions that are not at arms length;


      5. Where piercing of the corporate veil of one of the debtors is necessary or advisable to protect the rights of creditors of another debtor.


    Multiple Lee factors appear to be present here. On the other hand, the Court could conclude that a potential conflict of interest does not preclude employment so long as strictly tailored precautions are taken to avoid an actual conflict materializing. See, e.g., In re Stevens, 2015 WL 3476567 at *10 (Bankr. D. Mon. 2015) ("If the Stevens were creditors, they would have to show that an actual conflict of interest exists in order to disapprove Cotner’s employment.") (emphasis added). "The Court understands that the term ‘materially adverse’ to the interest of the estate in § 101(14)

      1. requires more than just a potential or theoretical adverse interest." Id.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11

TENTATIVE RULING



Subject to further comments from the United States Trustee, and after the submission of evidence which provides a reasonable accurate description of the extent of the inter-company transactions, the Court is inclined to APPROVE employment on a limited basis as outlined in the limited opposition of California Bank & Trust.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13127


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


#39.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 5/21/19 Also #37 & #38 EH   

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13130


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11


#40.00 Motion for substantive consolidation of debtors' estates 6:19-bk-13127-MH (Lead Case) with 6:19-bk-13130-MH; 6:19-bk-13131-MH; 6:19-bk-13132-MH; 6:19-bk-13133-MH


Also #41 & #42 EH       

Docket 88

Tentative Ruling:

7/30/19

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019. On April 23, 2019, Debtors filed motions to consolidate the cases. Debtors also filed an application shortening time, however, the Court denied the application, and the motions to consolidate were ultimately set for hearing on June 4, 2019. At the hearings of June 4, 2019, the Court denied the motions to consolidate without prejudice.

On July 9, 2019, Debtors filed a second motion for substantive consolidation. The primary grounds for substantive consolidation remain unchanged -- that Debtors are controlled by the same two individuals, Paul & Pamela Shanabarger (collectively, the "Shanabargers"), and that the Shanabargers "have admittedly historically failed to observe corporate formalities in the conduct of their business as between themselves, sharing and co-mingling funds extensively, routinely transferring funds between the entities as needed and without adhering to corporate formalities." [Dkt. No 121, pg.

2:00 PM

CONT...

2].


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11



Debtors have now added an additional argument in support of substantive consolidation: UST’s objection to the employment application of Debtors’ counsel, Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel"), on the grounds that each of the individual corporations may have conflicting and adverse interests. Additionally, California Bank & Trust filed a similar limited objection to the employment of Counsel. Debtors submit that, in the event the cases are not substantively consolidated, forcing each individual Debtor to obtain separate counsel would result in significantly increased administrative costs, severely burdening Debtors.


On July 16, 2019, the Court received a limited opposition from California Bank & Trust, and an opposition from National Cooperative Bank. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed their reply.


DISCUSSION



The Ninth Circuit has recently reiterated that:


To determine whether substantive consolidation is appropriate, a bankruptcy court evaluates "(i) whether creditors dealt with the entities as a single economic unit and did not rely on their separate identity in extending credit; or (ii) whether the affairs of the debtors are so entangled that consolidation will benefit all creditors. The sole aim of this analysis is fairness to all creditors.


Matter of Transwest Resort Props., Inc., 881 F.3d 724, 732 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted); see also In re Bonham, 229 F.3d 750, 771 (9th Cir. 2000) ("In either case, the bankruptcy court must in essence determine that the assets of all of the consolidated parties are substantially the same."). And the Ninth Circuit has

2:00 PM

CONT...


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11

previously stated that, when applying this test:


The presence of either factor is a sufficient basis to order substantive consolidation. The first factor, reliance on the separate credit of the entity, is based on the consideration that lenders structure their loans according to their expectations regarding the borrower and do not anticipate either having the assets of a more sound company available in the case of insolvency or having the creditors of a less sound debtor compete for the borrower’s assets. Consolidation under the second factor, entanglement of the debtor’s affairs, is justified only where the time and expense necessary even to attempt to unscramble them is so substantial as to threaten the realization of any net assets for all the creditors or where no accurate identification and allocation of assets is possible.


In re Bonham, 229 F.3d at 766. Furthermore, "substantive consolidation should be used sparingly and in keeping with its equitable nature." In re R&S St. Rose Lenders, LLC, 756 Fed. Appx. 731, 733 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted). "The party seeking to consolidate entities has the burden of establishing either allegation." In re Howland, 674 Fed. Appx. 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2017).


The fundamental problem with Debtors’ renewed request for substantive consolidation is that it appears that the only new evidence presented by Debtors – that UST has objected to the employment application of Counsel on, primarily, the basis that the individual debtors may have adverse interests – is not relevant to the legal test to be applied by this Court. As the Third Circuit has previously stated: "Mere benefit to the administration of the case (for example, allowing a court to simplify a case by avoiding other issues or to make postpetition accounting more convenient) is hardly a harm calling substantive consolidation into play." In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 211 (3rd Cir. 2005).


Here, Debtors do not appear to have raised material evidence to satisfy the first step of the Bonham test (that creditors relied on the entity as a single economic unit), instead focusing on the second factor, the entanglement of the financial affairs of Debtors.

While there is some evidence to submit a finding that Debtor has satisfied the second factor, it does not appear that there is any new evidence to warrant a different ruling

2:00 PM

CONT...


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11

from the Court. Quite simply, as the Ninth Circuit stated in In re Bonham, the remedy sought should be used sparingly and only when affairs are so "excessively entangled" that "consolidation will benefit all creditors." 229 F.3d 750 at 766. Here, that showing has not been made.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13130


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11


#41.00 Application to Employ Rosenstein & Associates as Bankruptcy Counsel Also #40 & #42

EH       


Docket 54

Tentative Ruling:

7/30/2019

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019.

On May 24, 2019, Debtors filed an application to employ bankruptcy counsel, seeking to employ Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel") retroactive to April 24, 2019. On June 7, 2019, UST filed its objection, arguing that the "extensive inter-company transactions" of the Debtors "may create potential and/or actual conflicts that may preclude the Firm from providing joint representation. [Dkt. No 95, pg. 2]. UST requests that: (a) Debtors amended their statement of financial affairs to disclose all inter-company transaction; (b) Counsel supplement its Rule 2014 disclosures; and (c) supplemental briefing be allowed regarding whether Counsel is "disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327 and whether Counsel complied with the disclosure requirements of Rule 2014." On June 10, 2019, California Bank & Trust filed a limited opposition, requesting that any employment order: (a) require Debtors to employ separate counsel with respect to any matter in which the individual Debtors have adverse interests; and (b) require Counsel to separately track the time and

2:00 PM

CONT...

9 FINGERS INC

Chapter 11

expenses incurred on behalf of each individual debtor. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed a reply, agreeing to the conditions set forth in the limited opposition filed by California Bank & Trust, but not directly addressing the concerns raised by UST.

DISCUSSION


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2014(a) states:


An order approving the employment of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or § 1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee or committee. The application shall be filed and, unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, a copy of the application shall be transmitted by the applicant to the United States trustee. The application shall state the specific facts showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation, and, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, all of the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.


Here, Counsel has adequately disclosed that he is seeking employment for each of the five different debtor corporations. While the objection of UST is cursory, it would appear that UST is requesting Counsel to make clear the extent of the inter-company transactions. The Court finds this to be a reasonable request, especially given that the future administration of the cases may be substantially affected by the magnitude of the transactions.


UST also requests that the Court "permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing

2:00 PM

CONT...


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11

on whether Counsel is disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327." [Dkt. No. 73, pg. 3]. As noted by California Bank & Trust, the Court applies a two-pronged test in reviewing employment under 11 U.S.C. § 327, reviewing: (1) disinterestedness; and (2) whether the applicant holds or represents an interest adverse to the estate. See In re Treasures, Inc., 2015 WL at 925957 at *15 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

2015)., UST & California Bank & Trust suggest that the inter-company transactions may result in a situation where Counsel would represent interests adverse to a bankruptcy estate that Counsel simultaneously represents.


The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has outlined the definition of "adverse interest":


The reported cases have defined what it means to hold an adverse interest as follows:

  1. to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.


To represent an adverse interest means to serve as an attorney for an entity holding such an adverse interest.


In re Tevis, 347 B.R. 679, 688 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court notes that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel then quoted, and briefly discussed California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310, which is the rule governing of conflicts of interest. The Court notes that this rule allows conflicts to be waived by the informed written consent of client; it is not clear, however, that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel applied this rule, or considered it relevant to the analysis under § 327. The Court does note, however, that accepting representation where even a potential conflict is present requires informed written consent under Professional Rule 3-310.


In the context of 11 U.S.C. § 327, where a proposed counsel clearly has a potential conflict, but may not have an actual conflict, or may reasonably be able to limit representation to avoid an actual conflict, there are two different approaches the Court

2:00 PM

CONT...


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11

could take. First, the Court could error on the side of caution and conclude that representation is simply improper. For example, the Court in In re Lee, 94 B.R. 172, 180 (Bankr C.D. Cal. 1988) stated the following:


Accordingly, this Court adopts a presumption for two or more related cases, that it is improper to appoint (1) a single trustee, (2) a single creditors’ committee, or (3) the same counsel for the trustees, for the creditors’ committee or for the debtors in possession under any of the following circumstances:


  1. Where creditors of the debtors have dealt with such debtors as an economic unit (which may be reflected in guaranties and subordination agreements);


  2. Where there is a substantial overlap of creditors;


  3. Where the affairs of the respective debtors (as reflected in inter-debtor accounts, jointly owned assets, guarantees, subordination agreements, or shared officers, directors or owners) appear to be substantially entangled;


  4. Where assets have been transferred from one debtor to another in transactions that are not at arms length;


  5. Where piercing of the corporate veil of one of the debtors is necessary or advisable to protect the rights of creditors of another debtor.


Multiple Lee factors appear to be present here. On the other hand, the Court could conclude that a potential conflict of interest does not preclude employment so long as strictly tailored precautions are taken to avoid an actual conflict materializing. See, e.g., In re Stevens, 2015 WL 3476567 at *10 (Bankr. D. Mon. 2015) ("If the Stevens were creditors, they would have to show that an actual conflict of interest exists in order to disapprove Cotner’s employment.") (emphasis added). "The Court understands that the term ‘materially adverse’ to the interest of the estate in § 101(14)

(C) requires more than just a potential or theoretical adverse interest." Id.

2:00 PM

CONT...


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11

TENTATIVE RULING



Subject to further comments from the United States Trustee, and after the submission of evidence which provides a reasonable accurate description of the extent of the inter-company transactions, the Court is inclined to APPROVE employment on a limited basis as outlined in the limited opposition of California Bank & Trust.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13130


9 FINGERS INC


Chapter 11


#42.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 5/21/19 Also #40 & #41 EH   

Docket 3


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

9 FINGERS INC Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13131


P&P HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#43.00 Motion for substantive consolidation of debtors' estates 6:19-bk-13127-MH (Lead Case) with 6:19-bk-13130-MH; 6:19-bk-13131-MH; 6:19-bk-13132-MH; 6:19-bk-13133-MH


Also #44 & #45 EH       

Docket 65

Tentative Ruling:

7/30/19

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019. On April 23, 2019, Debtors filed motions to consolidate the cases. Debtors also filed an application shortening time, however, the Court denied the application, and the motions to consolidate were ultimately set for hearing on June 4, 2019. At the hearings of June 4, 2019, the Court denied the motions to consolidate without prejudice.

On July 9, 2019, Debtors filed a second motion for substantive consolidation. The primary grounds for substantive consolidation remain unchanged -- that Debtors are controlled by the same two individuals, Paul & Pamela Shanabarger (collectively, the "Shanabargers"), and that the Shanabargers "have admittedly historically failed to observe corporate formalities in the conduct of their business as between themselves, sharing and co-mingling funds extensively, routinely transferring funds between the entities as needed and without adhering to corporate formalities." [Dkt. No 121, pg.

2:00 PM

CONT...

2].


P&P HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11



Debtors have now added an additional argument in support of substantive consolidation: UST’s objection to the employment application of Debtors’ counsel, Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel"), on the grounds that each of the individual corporations may have conflicting and adverse interests. Additionally, California Bank & Trust filed a similar limited objection to the employment of Counsel. Debtors submit that, in the event the cases are not substantively consolidated, forcing each individual Debtor to obtain separate counsel would result in significantly increased administrative costs, severely burdening Debtors.


On July 16, 2019, the Court received a limited opposition from California Bank & Trust, and an opposition from National Cooperative Bank. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed their reply.


DISCUSSION



The Ninth Circuit has recently reiterated that:


To determine whether substantive consolidation is appropriate, a bankruptcy court evaluates "(i) whether creditors dealt with the entities as a single economic unit and did not rely on their separate identity in extending credit; or (ii) whether the affairs of the debtors are so entangled that consolidation will benefit all creditors. The sole aim of this analysis is fairness to all creditors.


Matter of Transwest Resort Props., Inc., 881 F.3d 724, 732 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted); see also In re Bonham, 229 F.3d 750, 771 (9th Cir. 2000) ("In either case, the bankruptcy court must in essence determine that the assets of all of the consolidated parties are substantially the same."). And the Ninth Circuit has

2:00 PM

CONT...


P&P HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11

previously stated that, when applying this test:


The presence of either factor is a sufficient basis to order substantive consolidation. The first factor, reliance on the separate credit of the entity, is based on the consideration that lenders structure their loans according to their expectations regarding the borrower and do not anticipate either having the assets of a more sound company available in the case of insolvency or having the creditors of a less sound debtor compete for the borrower’s assets. Consolidation under the second factor, entanglement of the debtor’s affairs, is justified only where the time and expense necessary even to attempt to unscramble them is so substantial as to threaten the realization of any net assets for all the creditors or where no accurate identification and allocation of assets is possible.


In re Bonham, 229 F.3d at 766. Furthermore, "substantive consolidation should be used sparingly and in keeping with its equitable nature." In re R&S St. Rose Lenders, LLC, 756 Fed. Appx. 731, 733 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted). "The party seeking to consolidate entities has the burden of establishing either allegation." In re Howland, 674 Fed. Appx. 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2017).


The fundamental problem with Debtors’ renewed request for substantive consolidation is that it appears that the only new evidence presented by Debtors – that UST has objected to the employment application of Counsel on, primarily, the basis that the individual debtors may have adverse interests – is not relevant to the legal test to be applied by this Court. As the Third Circuit has previously stated: "Mere benefit to the administration of the case (for example, allowing a court to simplify a case by avoiding other issues or to make postpetition accounting more convenient) is hardly a harm calling substantive consolidation into play." In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 211 (3rd Cir. 2005).


Here, Debtors do not appear to have raised material evidence to satisfy the first step of the Bonham test (that creditors relied on the entity as a single economic unit), instead focusing on the second factor, the entanglement of the financial affairs of Debtors.

While there is some evidence to submit a finding that Debtor has satisfied the second factor, it does not appear that there is any new evidence to warrant a different ruling

2:00 PM

CONT...


P&P HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11

from the Court. Quite simply, as the Ninth Circuit stated in In re Bonham, the remedy sought should be used sparingly and only when affairs are so "excessively entangled" that "consolidation will benefit all creditors." 229 F.3d 750 at 766. Here, that showing has not been made.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13131


P&P HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#44.00 Application to Employ Rosenstein & Associates as Bankruptcy Counsel Also #43 & #45

EH       


Docket 37

Tentative Ruling:

7/30/2019

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019.

On May 24, 2019, Debtors filed an application to employ bankruptcy counsel, seeking to employ Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel") retroactive to April 24, 2019. On June 7, 2019, UST filed its objection, arguing that the "extensive inter-company transactions" of the Debtors "may create potential and/or actual conflicts that may preclude the Firm from providing joint representation. [Dkt. No 95, pg. 2]. UST requests that: (a) Debtors amended their statement of financial affairs to disclose all inter-company transaction; (b) Counsel supplement its Rule 2014 disclosures; and (c) supplemental briefing be allowed regarding whether Counsel is "disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327 and whether Counsel complied with the disclosure requirements of Rule 2014." On June 10, 2019, California Bank & Trust filed a limited opposition, requesting that any employment order: (a) require Debtors to employ separate counsel with respect to any matter in which the individual Debtors have adverse interests; and (b) require Counsel to separately track the time and

2:00 PM

CONT...

P&P HARDWARE INC.

Chapter 11

expenses incurred on behalf of each individual debtor. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed a reply, agreeing to the conditions set forth in the limited opposition filed by California Bank & Trust, but not directly addressing the concerns raised by UST.

DISCUSSION


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2014(a) states:


An order approving the employment of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or § 1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee or committee. The application shall be filed and, unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, a copy of the application shall be transmitted by the applicant to the United States trustee. The application shall state the specific facts showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation, and, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, all of the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.


Here, Counsel has adequately disclosed that he is seeking employment for each of the five different debtor corporations. While the objection of UST is cursory, it would appear that UST is requesting Counsel to make clear the extent of the inter-company transactions. The Court finds this to be a reasonable request, especially given that the future administration of the cases may be substantially affected by the magnitude of the transactions.


UST also requests that the Court "permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing

2:00 PM

CONT...


P&P HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11

on whether Counsel is disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327." [Dkt. No. 73, pg. 3]. As noted by California Bank & Trust, the Court applies a two-pronged test in reviewing employment under 11 U.S.C. § 327, reviewing: (1) disinterestedness; and (2) whether the applicant holds or represents an interest adverse to the estate. See In re Treasures, Inc., 2015 WL at 925957 at *15 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

2015)., UST & California Bank & Trust suggest that the inter-company transactions may result in a situation where Counsel would represent interests adverse to a bankruptcy estate that Counsel simultaneously represents.


The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has outlined the definition of "adverse interest":


The reported cases have defined what it means to hold an adverse interest as follows:

  1. to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.


    To represent an adverse interest means to serve as an attorney for an entity holding such an adverse interest.


    In re Tevis, 347 B.R. 679, 688 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court notes that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel then quoted, and briefly discussed California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310, which is the rule governing of conflicts of interest. The Court notes that this rule allows conflicts to be waived by the informed written consent of client; it is not clear, however, that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel applied this rule, or considered it relevant to the analysis under § 327. The Court does note, however, that accepting representation where even a potential conflict is present requires informed written consent under Professional Rule 3-310.


    In the context of 11 U.S.C. § 327, where a proposed counsel clearly has a potential conflict, but may not have an actual conflict, or may reasonably be able to limit representation to avoid an actual conflict, there are two different approaches the Court

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    P&P HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    could take. First, the Court could error on the side of caution and conclude that representation is simply improper. For example, the Court in In re Lee, 94 B.R. 172, 180 (Bankr C.D. Cal. 1988) stated the following:


    Accordingly, this Court adopts a presumption for two or more related cases, that it is improper to appoint (1) a single trustee, (2) a single creditors’ committee, or (3) the same counsel for the trustees, for the creditors’ committee or for the debtors in possession under any of the following circumstances:


    1. Where creditors of the debtors have dealt with such debtors as an economic unit (which may be reflected in guaranties and subordination agreements);


    2. Where there is a substantial overlap of creditors;


    3. Where the affairs of the respective debtors (as reflected in inter-debtor accounts, jointly owned assets, guarantees, subordination agreements, or shared officers, directors or owners) appear to be substantially entangled;


    4. Where assets have been transferred from one debtor to another in transactions that are not at arms length;


    5. Where piercing of the corporate veil of one of the debtors is necessary or advisable to protect the rights of creditors of another debtor.


Multiple Lee factors appear to be present here. On the other hand, the Court could conclude that a potential conflict of interest does not preclude employment so long as strictly tailored precautions are taken to avoid an actual conflict materializing. See, e.g., In re Stevens, 2015 WL 3476567 at *10 (Bankr. D. Mon. 2015) ("If the Stevens were creditors, they would have to show that an actual conflict of interest exists in order to disapprove Cotner’s employment.") (emphasis added). "The Court understands that the term ‘materially adverse’ to the interest of the estate in § 101(14)

  1. requires more than just a potential or theoretical adverse interest." Id.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    P&P HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    TENTATIVE RULING



    Subject to further comments from the United States Trustee, and after the submission of evidence which provides a reasonable accurate description of the extent of the inter-company transactions, the Court is inclined to APPROVE employment on a limited basis as outlined in the limited opposition of California Bank & Trust.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13131


    P&P HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11


    #45.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 5/21/19 Also #43 & #44 EH   

    Docket 5


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    P&P HARDWARE INC. Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13132


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11


    #46.00 Motion for substantive consolidation of debtors' estates 6:19-bk-13127-MH (Lead Case) with 6:19-bk-13130-MH; 6:19-bk-13131-MH; 6:19-bk-13132-MH; 6:19-bk-13133-MH


    Also #47 & #48 EH       

    Docket 88

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/19

    BACKGROUND

    On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019. On April 23, 2019, Debtors filed motions to consolidate the cases. Debtors also filed an application shortening time, however, the Court denied the application, and the motions to consolidate were ultimately set for hearing on June 4, 2019. At the hearings of June 4, 2019, the Court denied the motions to consolidate without prejudice.

    On July 9, 2019, Debtors filed a second motion for substantive consolidation. The primary grounds for substantive consolidation remain unchanged -- that Debtors are controlled by the same two individuals, Paul & Pamela Shanabarger (collectively, the "Shanabargers"), and that the Shanabargers "have admittedly historically failed to observe corporate formalities in the conduct of their business as between themselves, sharing and co-mingling funds extensively, routinely transferring funds between the entities as needed and without adhering to corporate formalities." [Dkt. No 121, pg.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    2].


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11



    Debtors have now added an additional argument in support of substantive consolidation: UST’s objection to the employment application of Debtors’ counsel, Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel"), on the grounds that each of the individual corporations may have conflicting and adverse interests. Additionally, California Bank & Trust filed a similar limited objection to the employment of Counsel. Debtors submit that, in the event the cases are not substantively consolidated, forcing each individual Debtor to obtain separate counsel would result in significantly increased administrative costs, severely burdening Debtors.


    On July 16, 2019, the Court received a limited opposition from California Bank & Trust, and an opposition from National Cooperative Bank. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed their reply.


    DISCUSSION



    The Ninth Circuit has recently reiterated that:


    To determine whether substantive consolidation is appropriate, a bankruptcy court evaluates "(i) whether creditors dealt with the entities as a single economic unit and did not rely on their separate identity in extending credit; or (ii) whether the affairs of the debtors are so entangled that consolidation will benefit all creditors. The sole aim of this analysis is fairness to all creditors.


    Matter of Transwest Resort Props., Inc., 881 F.3d 724, 732 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted); see also In re Bonham, 229 F.3d 750, 771 (9th Cir. 2000) ("In either case, the bankruptcy court must in essence determine that the assets of all of the consolidated parties are substantially the same."). And the Ninth Circuit has

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    previously stated that, when applying this test:


    The presence of either factor is a sufficient basis to order substantive consolidation. The first factor, reliance on the separate credit of the entity, is based on the consideration that lenders structure their loans according to their expectations regarding the borrower and do not anticipate either having the assets of a more sound company available in the case of insolvency or having the creditors of a less sound debtor compete for the borrower’s assets. Consolidation under the second factor, entanglement of the debtor’s affairs, is justified only where the time and expense necessary even to attempt to unscramble them is so substantial as to threaten the realization of any net assets for all the creditors or where no accurate identification and allocation of assets is possible.


    In re Bonham, 229 F.3d at 766. Furthermore, "substantive consolidation should be used sparingly and in keeping with its equitable nature." In re R&S St. Rose Lenders, LLC, 756 Fed. Appx. 731, 733 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted). "The party seeking to consolidate entities has the burden of establishing either allegation." In re Howland, 674 Fed. Appx. 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2017).


    The fundamental problem with Debtors’ renewed request for substantive consolidation is that it appears that the only new evidence presented by Debtors – that UST has objected to the employment application of Counsel on, primarily, the basis that the individual debtors may have adverse interests – is not relevant to the legal test to be applied by this Court. As the Third Circuit has previously stated: "Mere benefit to the administration of the case (for example, allowing a court to simplify a case by avoiding other issues or to make postpetition accounting more convenient) is hardly a harm calling substantive consolidation into play." In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 211 (3rd Cir. 2005).


    Here, Debtors do not appear to have raised material evidence to satisfy the first step of the Bonham test (that creditors relied on the entity as a single economic unit), instead focusing on the second factor, the entanglement of the financial affairs of Debtors.

    While there is some evidence to submit a finding that Debtor has satisfied the second factor, it does not appear that there is any new evidence to warrant a different ruling

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    from the Court. Quite simply, as the Ninth Circuit stated in In re Bonham, the remedy sought should be used sparingly and only when affairs are so "excessively entangled" that "consolidation will benefit all creditors." 229 F.3d 750 at 766. Here, that showing has not been made.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13132


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11


    #47.00 Application to Employ Rosenstein & Associates as Bankruptcy Counsel Also #46 & #48

    EH       


    Docket 52

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019

    BACKGROUND

    On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019.

    On May 24, 2019, Debtors filed an application to employ bankruptcy counsel, seeking to employ Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel") retroactive to April 24, 2019. On June 7, 2019, UST filed its objection, arguing that the "extensive inter-company transactions" of the Debtors "may create potential and/or actual conflicts that may preclude the Firm from providing joint representation. [Dkt. No 95, pg. 2]. UST requests that: (a) Debtors amended their statement of financial affairs to disclose all inter-company transaction; (b) Counsel supplement its Rule 2014 disclosures; and (c) supplemental briefing be allowed regarding whether Counsel is "disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327 and whether Counsel complied with the disclosure requirements of Rule 2014." On June 10, 2019, California Bank & Trust filed a limited opposition, requesting that any employment order: (a) require Debtors to employ separate counsel with respect to any matter in which the individual Debtors have adverse interests; and (b) require Counsel to separately track the time and

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.

    Chapter 11

    expenses incurred on behalf of each individual debtor. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed a reply, agreeing to the conditions set forth in the limited opposition filed by California Bank & Trust, but not directly addressing the concerns raised by UST.

    DISCUSSION


    FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2014(a) states:


    An order approving the employment of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or § 1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee or committee. The application shall be filed and, unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, a copy of the application shall be transmitted by the applicant to the United States trustee. The application shall state the specific facts showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation, and, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, all of the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.


    Here, Counsel has adequately disclosed that he is seeking employment for each of the five different debtor corporations. While the objection of UST is cursory, it would appear that UST is requesting Counsel to make clear the extent of the inter-company transactions. The Court finds this to be a reasonable request, especially given that the future administration of the cases may be substantially affected by the magnitude of the transactions.


    UST also requests that the Court "permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    on whether Counsel is disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327." [Dkt. No. 73, pg. 3]. As noted by California Bank & Trust, the Court applies a two-pronged test in reviewing employment under 11 U.S.C. § 327, reviewing: (1) disinterestedness; and (2) whether the applicant holds or represents an interest adverse to the estate. See In re Treasures, Inc., 2015 WL at 925957 at *15 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

    2015)., UST & California Bank & Trust suggest that the inter-company transactions may result in a situation where Counsel would represent interests adverse to a bankruptcy estate that Counsel simultaneously represents.


    The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has outlined the definition of "adverse interest":


    The reported cases have defined what it means to hold an adverse interest as follows:

    1. to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.


      To represent an adverse interest means to serve as an attorney for an entity holding such an adverse interest.


      In re Tevis, 347 B.R. 679, 688 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court notes that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel then quoted, and briefly discussed California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310, which is the rule governing of conflicts of interest. The Court notes that this rule allows conflicts to be waived by the informed written consent of client; it is not clear, however, that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel applied this rule, or considered it relevant to the analysis under § 327. The Court does note, however, that accepting representation where even a potential conflict is present requires informed written consent under Professional Rule 3-310.


      In the context of 11 U.S.C. § 327, where a proposed counsel clearly has a potential conflict, but may not have an actual conflict, or may reasonably be able to limit representation to avoid an actual conflict, there are two different approaches the Court

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


      Chapter 11

      could take. First, the Court could error on the side of caution and conclude that representation is simply improper. For example, the Court in In re Lee, 94 B.R. 172, 180 (Bankr C.D. Cal. 1988) stated the following:


      Accordingly, this Court adopts a presumption for two or more related cases, that it is improper to appoint (1) a single trustee, (2) a single creditors’ committee, or (3) the same counsel for the trustees, for the creditors’ committee or for the debtors in possession under any of the following circumstances:


      1. Where creditors of the debtors have dealt with such debtors as an economic unit (which may be reflected in guaranties and subordination agreements);


      2. Where there is a substantial overlap of creditors;


      3. Where the affairs of the respective debtors (as reflected in inter-debtor accounts, jointly owned assets, guarantees, subordination agreements, or shared officers, directors or owners) appear to be substantially entangled;


      4. Where assets have been transferred from one debtor to another in transactions that are not at arms length;


      5. Where piercing of the corporate veil of one of the debtors is necessary or advisable to protect the rights of creditors of another debtor.


Multiple Lee factors appear to be present here. On the other hand, the Court could conclude that a potential conflict of interest does not preclude employment so long as strictly tailored precautions are taken to avoid an actual conflict materializing. See, e.g., In re Stevens, 2015 WL 3476567 at *10 (Bankr. D. Mon. 2015) ("If the Stevens were creditors, they would have to show that an actual conflict of interest exists in order to disapprove Cotner’s employment.") (emphasis added). "The Court understands that the term ‘materially adverse’ to the interest of the estate in § 101(14)

  1. requires more than just a potential or theoretical adverse interest." Id.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    TENTATIVE RULING



    Subject to further comments from the United States Trustee, and after the submission of evidence which provides a reasonable accurate description of the extent of the inter-company transactions, the Court is inclined to APPROVE employment on a limited basis as outlined in the limited opposition of California Bank & Trust.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13132


    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11


    #48.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


    From: 5/21/19 Also #46 & #47 EH   

    Docket 3


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13133


    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11


    #49.00 Motion for substantive consolidation of debtors' estates 6:19-bk-13127-MH (Lead Case) with 6:19-bk-13130-MH; 6:19-bk-13131-MH; 6:19-bk-13132-MH; 6:19-bk-13133-MH


    Also #50 & #51 EH       

    Docket 89

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/19

    BACKGROUND

    On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019. On April 23, 2019, Debtors filed motions to consolidate the cases. Debtors also filed an application shortening time, however, the Court denied the application, and the motions to consolidate were ultimately set for hearing on June 4, 2019. At the hearings of June 4, 2019, the Court denied the motions to consolidate without prejudice.

    On July 9, 2019, Debtors filed a second motion for substantive consolidation. The primary grounds for substantive consolidation remain unchanged -- that Debtors are controlled by the same two individuals, Paul & Pamela Shanabarger (collectively, the "Shanabargers"), and that the Shanabargers "have admittedly historically failed to observe corporate formalities in the conduct of their business as between themselves, sharing and co-mingling funds extensively, routinely transferring funds between the entities as needed and without adhering to corporate formalities." [Dkt. No 121, pg.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    2].


    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11



    Debtors have now added an additional argument in support of substantive consolidation: UST’s objection to the employment application of Debtors’ counsel, Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel"), on the grounds that each of the individual corporations may have conflicting and adverse interests. Additionally, California Bank & Trust filed a similar limited objection to the employment of Counsel. Debtors submit that, in the event the cases are not substantively consolidated, forcing each individual Debtor to obtain separate counsel would result in significantly increased administrative costs, severely burdening Debtors.


    On July 16, 2019, the Court received a limited opposition from California Bank & Trust, and an opposition from National Cooperative Bank. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed their reply.


    DISCUSSION



    The Ninth Circuit has recently reiterated that:


    To determine whether substantive consolidation is appropriate, a bankruptcy court evaluates "(i) whether creditors dealt with the entities as a single economic unit and did not rely on their separate identity in extending credit; or (ii) whether the affairs of the debtors are so entangled that consolidation will benefit all creditors. The sole aim of this analysis is fairness to all creditors.


    Matter of Transwest Resort Props., Inc., 881 F.3d 724, 732 (9th Cir. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted); see also In re Bonham, 229 F.3d 750, 771 (9th Cir. 2000) ("In either case, the bankruptcy court must in essence determine that the assets of all of the consolidated parties are substantially the same."). And the Ninth Circuit has

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    previously stated that, when applying this test:


    The presence of either factor is a sufficient basis to order substantive consolidation. The first factor, reliance on the separate credit of the entity, is based on the consideration that lenders structure their loans according to their expectations regarding the borrower and do not anticipate either having the assets of a more sound company available in the case of insolvency or having the creditors of a less sound debtor compete for the borrower’s assets. Consolidation under the second factor, entanglement of the debtor’s affairs, is justified only where the time and expense necessary even to attempt to unscramble them is so substantial as to threaten the realization of any net assets for all the creditors or where no accurate identification and allocation of assets is possible.


    In re Bonham, 229 F.3d at 766. Furthermore, "substantive consolidation should be used sparingly and in keeping with its equitable nature." In re R&S St. Rose Lenders, LLC, 756 Fed. Appx. 731, 733 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted). "The party seeking to consolidate entities has the burden of establishing either allegation." In re Howland, 674 Fed. Appx. 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2017).


    The fundamental problem with Debtors’ renewed request for substantive consolidation is that it appears that the only new evidence presented by Debtors – that UST has objected to the employment application of Counsel on, primarily, the basis that the individual debtors may have adverse interests – is not relevant to the legal test to be applied by this Court. As the Third Circuit has previously stated: "Mere benefit to the administration of the case (for example, allowing a court to simplify a case by avoiding other issues or to make postpetition accounting more convenient) is hardly a harm calling substantive consolidation into play." In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 211 (3rd Cir. 2005).


    Here, Debtors do not appear to have raised material evidence to satisfy the first step of the Bonham test (that creditors relied on the entity as a single economic unit), instead focusing on the second factor, the entanglement of the financial affairs of Debtors.

    While there is some evidence to submit a finding that Debtor has satisfied the second factor, it does not appear that there is any new evidence to warrant a different ruling

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    from the Court. Quite simply, as the Ninth Circuit stated in In re Bonham, the remedy sought should be used sparingly and only when affairs are so "excessively entangled" that "consolidation will benefit all creditors." 229 F.3d 750 at 766. Here, that showing has not been made.


    TENTATIVE RULING



    The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    2:00 PM

    6:19-13133


    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11


    #50.00 Application to Employ Rosenstein & Associates as Bankruptcy Counsel Also #49 & #51

    EH       


    Docket 55

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/2019

    BACKGROUND

    On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc., 9 Fingers, Inc., P&P Hardware, Inc. Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc., and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors") all filed Chapter 11 voluntary petitions; their cases are jointly administered as of July 12, 2019.

    On May 24, 2019, Debtors filed an application to employ bankruptcy counsel, seeking to employ Rosenstein & Associates ("Counsel") retroactive to April 24, 2019. On June 7, 2019, UST filed its objection, arguing that the "extensive inter-company transactions" of the Debtors "may create potential and/or actual conflicts that may preclude the Firm from providing joint representation. [Dkt. No 95, pg. 2]. UST requests that: (a) Debtors amended their statement of financial affairs to disclose all inter-company transaction; (b) Counsel supplement its Rule 2014 disclosures; and (c) supplemental briefing be allowed regarding whether Counsel is "disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327 and whether Counsel complied with the disclosure requirements of Rule 2014." On June 10, 2019, California Bank & Trust filed a limited opposition, requesting that any employment order: (a) require Debtors to employ separate counsel with respect to any matter in which the individual Debtors have adverse interests; and (b) require Counsel to separately track the time and

    2:00 PM

    CONT...

    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.

    Chapter 11

    expenses incurred on behalf of each individual debtor. On July 23, 2019, Debtors filed a reply, agreeing to the conditions set forth in the limited opposition filed by California Bank & Trust, but not directly addressing the concerns raised by UST.

    DISCUSSION


    FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2014(a) states:


    An order approving the employment of attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, or other professionals pursuant to § 327, § 1103, or § 1114 of the Code shall be made only on application of the trustee or committee. The application shall be filed and, unless the case is a chapter 9 municipality case, a copy of the application shall be transmitted by the applicant to the United States trustee. The application shall state the specific facts showing the necessity for the employment, the name of the person to be employed, the reasons for the selection, the professional services to be rendered, any proposed arrangement for compensation, and, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, all of the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee. The application shall be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person’s connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.


    Here, Counsel has adequately disclosed that he is seeking employment for each of the five different debtor corporations. While the objection of UST is cursory, it would appear that UST is requesting Counsel to make clear the extent of the inter-company transactions. The Court finds this to be a reasonable request, especially given that the future administration of the cases may be substantially affected by the magnitude of the transactions.


    UST also requests that the Court "permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


    Chapter 11

    on whether Counsel is disinterested or represents adverse interests under Section 327." [Dkt. No. 73, pg. 3]. As noted by California Bank & Trust, the Court applies a two-pronged test in reviewing employment under 11 U.S.C. § 327, reviewing: (1) disinterestedness; and (2) whether the applicant holds or represents an interest adverse to the estate. See In re Treasures, Inc., 2015 WL at 925957 at *15 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.

    2015)., UST & California Bank & Trust suggest that the inter-company transactions may result in a situation where Counsel would represent interests adverse to a bankruptcy estate that Counsel simultaneously represents.


    The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has outlined the definition of "adverse interest":


    The reported cases have defined what it means to hold an adverse interest as follows:

    1. to possess or assert any economic interest that would tend to lessen the value of the bankruptcy estate or that would create either an actual or potential dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant; or (2) to possess a predisposition under circumstances that render such a bias against the estate.


      To represent an adverse interest means to serve as an attorney for an entity holding such an adverse interest.


      In re Tevis, 347 B.R. 679, 688 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The Court notes that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel then quoted, and briefly discussed California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-310, which is the rule governing of conflicts of interest. The Court notes that this rule allows conflicts to be waived by the informed written consent of client; it is not clear, however, that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel applied this rule, or considered it relevant to the analysis under § 327. The Court does note, however, that accepting representation where even a potential conflict is present requires informed written consent under Professional Rule 3-310.


      In the context of 11 U.S.C. § 327, where a proposed counsel clearly has a potential conflict, but may not have an actual conflict, or may reasonably be able to limit representation to avoid an actual conflict, there are two different approaches the Court

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


      Chapter 11

      could take. First, the Court could error on the side of caution and conclude that representation is simply improper. For example, the Court in In re Lee, 94 B.R. 172, 180 (Bankr C.D. Cal. 1988) stated the following:


      Accordingly, this Court adopts a presumption for two or more related cases, that it is improper to appoint (1) a single trustee, (2) a single creditors’ committee, or (3) the same counsel for the trustees, for the creditors’ committee or for the debtors in possession under any of the following circumstances:


      1. Where creditors of the debtors have dealt with such debtors as an economic unit (which may be reflected in guaranties and subordination agreements);


      2. Where there is a substantial overlap of creditors;


      3. Where the affairs of the respective debtors (as reflected in inter-debtor accounts, jointly owned assets, guarantees, subordination agreements, or shared officers, directors or owners) appear to be substantially entangled;


      4. Where assets have been transferred from one debtor to another in transactions that are not at arms length;


      5. Where piercing of the corporate veil of one of the debtors is necessary or advisable to protect the rights of creditors of another debtor.


Multiple Lee factors appear to be present here. On the other hand, the Court could conclude that a potential conflict of interest does not preclude employment so long as strictly tailored precautions are taken to avoid an actual conflict materializing. See, e.g., In re Stevens, 2015 WL 3476567 at *10 (Bankr. D. Mon. 2015) ("If the Stevens were creditors, they would have to show that an actual conflict of interest exists in order to disapprove Cotner’s employment.") (emphasis added). "The Court understands that the term ‘materially adverse’ to the interest of the estate in § 101(14)

(C) requires more than just a potential or theoretical adverse interest." Id.

2:00 PM

CONT...


WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11

TENTATIVE RULING



Subject to further comments from the United States Trustee, and after the submission of evidence which provides a reasonable accurate description of the extent of the inter-company transactions, the Court is inclined to APPROVE employment on a limited basis as outlined in the limited opposition of California Bank & Trust.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-13133


WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


Chapter 11


#51.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 5/21/19 Also #49 & #50 EH   

Docket 3


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

11:00 AM

6:19-12732


Armando Gutierrez


Chapter 7


#1.00 CONT Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and ONEMAIN FINANCIAL re 2002 GMC


From: 7/17/19 EH   

Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Armando Gutierrez Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:11-12667


Maximino Romero Torres and Rebecca Anne Torres


Chapter 7


#2.00 Debtor's Motion to Avoid Lien under with Ford Motor Credit Company EH       

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maximino Romero Torres Represented By James A Alderson

Joint Debtor(s):

Rebecca Anne Torres Represented By James A Alderson

Trustee(s):

Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:13-10775


Nereo Gomez


Chapter 7


#3.00 CONT Motion to Sell Property of the Estate Free and Clear of Liens under Section 363(f) --Motion for Order: (1) Approving Compromise; and (2) Authorizing Trustee to Sell Real Property, Free and Clear of Liens, Subject to Overbid


From: 5/22/19 EH   

Docket 27

Tentative Ruling:

5/22/19

BACKGROUND


On January 15, 2013, Nereo Gomez ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 29, 2013, Debtor received a discharge; the case was closed two days later.


On January 3, 2018, upon motion by UST, the Court reopened the case. On January 12, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of assets.


On April 30, 2019, Trustee filed the instant motion for approval of compromise and sale of real property (the "Motion"). The Court has not received any opposition to the Motion.


The Motion relates to certain unencumbered vacant land in Fontana (the "Property").

11:00 AM

CONT...


Nereo Gomez


Chapter 7

The Property is subject to state court litigation filed by Lawrence Schoelch (the "Buyer"). who owns adjoining land, and filed a state court complaint which included quiet title, trespass, slander/disparagement of title, and setoff or offset. Pursuant to the motion, Trustee seeks to sell the Property, free and clear, to Buyer, and Buyer will then dismiss the pending state court litigation with prejudice.


DISCUSSION



The Court notes three different issues with the Motion.


First, the Motion does not contain any detailed evidence which would enable the Court to assess the reasonableness of the underlying compromise and sale of the Property. The only evidence relating to the fair market value of the Property is Trustee’s unsubstantiated assertion that "the Sales Price represents the fair market value for the Real Property considering the unique characteristics of the Real Property and the State Court Action that affects the marketability of the Real Property." [Dkt No. 27, pg 22, lines 18-21]. Regarding the compromise of the state court litigation, the Court has no meaningful evidence which would allow the Court to analyze the reasonableness of the compromise.


Second, while the Court is aware that the proposed sale is the result of a compromise with Buyer, the Court notes that there appears to have been minimal marketing or noticing of the sale. If the Motion had been primarily styled as a compromise motion, which included a sale, rather than a sale motion, which included a compromise, then it may have been appropriate to simply inquire whether there was a reasonable possibility of overbids. As a sale motion, however, the Motion falls materially short of the typical marketing and notice requirements.


Third, if the Court were to construe the motion as a compromise motion, the Motion fails to provide adequate notice. Specifically, the Motion utilizes the standard sale

11:00 AM

CONT...


Nereo Gomez


Chapter 7

motion notice procedures, which include serving notice on all creditors, but only serving the actual motion on certain parties. An actual compromise motion, on the other hand, is required to be served on all parties.


Pursuant to the previous two paragraphs, the Motions, a hybrid compromise-sale motion, does not satisfy the marketing requirements necessary for a sale motion nor does it satisfy the notice requirements necessary for a compromise motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nereo Gomez Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Nancy H Zamora

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Nancy H Zamora

11:00 AM

6:17-16272


Martha Lorena Soto Jimenez


Chapter 7


#4.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 71

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING


Date: 7/31/2019 Opposition: None Service: Proper


The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 13,081.81 Trustee Expenses: $ 108.69


Attorney Fees: $ 29,717.50 Attorney Expenses: $ 1,688.80


Accountant Fees: $ 1,806.00 Accountant Expenses: $ 273.10


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Martha Lorena Soto Jimenez


Chapter 7

Martha Lorena Soto Jimenez Represented By Marlin Branstetter

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Carmela Pagay

11:00 AM

6:18-13057


Desert Ice Castle, LLC


Chapter 7


#5.00 Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy Between Chapter 7 Trustee, Debtor, Anthony Yue Ming Liu, Ice Castle, Inc. and Magic Ice, LLC Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019


EH       


Docket 91

*** VACATED *** REASON: ADVANCED TO 7/30/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Desert Ice Castle, LLC Represented By Paul M Stoddard

Movant(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

11:00 AM

6:19-12378


Frank Hernandez


Chapter 7


#6.00 Debtor's Motion for Order Redeeming Vehicle re: 2012 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Sedan


EH       


Docket 15

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Hernandez Represented By Leonard J Cravens

Movant(s):

Frank Hernandez Represented By Leonard J Cravens

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14360


Gyasi Tabari Griffin


Chapter 7


#7.00 Order to show cause re dismissal for failure to comply with rule 1006(B) - Installments


EH   


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: SECOND INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PAID 7/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gyasi Tabari Griffin Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15045


Howard Edward Terrell, Jr.


Chapter 7


#8.00 Creditor, CA Home Buyers 247, LLC Motion to Dismiss Case with a Bar to Refiling


EH       


Docket 11

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 8/21/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Howard Edward Terrell Jr. Represented By John R Setlich

Movant(s):

CA Homebuyres 247 LLC Represented By Matthew Abbasi

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:09-37495


Sultan Fakhoury


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01067 Fakhoury et al v. HAZMAT TSDF INC.


#9.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01067. Complaint by Sultan Fakhoury, Catherine M Fakhoury against Filter Recycling Services Inc, HAZMAT TSDF INC.. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Marchetti, Albert)


From: 6/26/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

Defendant(s):

HAZMAT TSDF INC. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

Plaintiff(s):

Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Sultan Fakhoury


Chapter 7

Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#10.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re Another Meridian Company LLC


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19


Also #11 & #12 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#11.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re ASR Constructors Inc


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19


Also #10 & #12 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#12.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report re Inland Machinery, Inc


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19


Also #10 & #11 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#13.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01286. Complaint by ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation, Another Meridian Company, LLC, Inland Machinery, Inc. against Gotte Electric, Inc., Insurance Company Of The West, Employment Development Department, Trico-Savi Business Park, L.P., a California limited partnership, Angela Denise McKnight, Steven Schonder, Western Alliance Bank, an Arizona corporation, United states of america, Carlin Law Group APC, Ledcor Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

Complaint in Interpleader Nature of Suit: (02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) (Bastian, James)

Trico-Savi Business Park L.P. - Dismissed 12/28/17

Western Alliance Bank, dba Torrey Pines Bank - Dismissed 2/1/18 Gotte Electric, Inc - Dismissed 3/14/18

Ledcor Construction Inc - Dismissed 3/26/18


From: 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/17/19 AT 2:00 PM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation

David B Shemano Howard J Weg


Chapter 11

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

United states of america Represented By Charles Parker Najah J Shariff

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-16831


Young Jin Yoon


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01210 Kim v. Yoon et al


#14.00 CONT Status Conference Re: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01210. Complaint by Vivian Kim against Young Jin Yoon, Hyunmyung Park, Joshua Park. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud, 72 - Injunctive relief - other, 13 - Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury


From: 1/9/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Young Jin Yoon Represented By Ji Yoon Kim

Defendant(s):

Young Jin Yoon Represented By Ji Yoon Kim

Hyun Myung Park Represented By Ji Yoon Kim

Joshua Park Represented By

Ji Yoon Kim

Plaintiff(s):

Vivian Kim Represented By

Jiyoung Kym

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Young Jin Yoon


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-11766


Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:19-01084 SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. Yahya


#15.00 Status Conference re: Complaint by SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION against Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud))


EH       


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: ANOTHER SUMMONS ISSUED - ADVERSARY CONTINUED TO 8/1/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-30133


Nabeel Slaieh


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01081 Albrecht v. Slaieh


#16.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:14-ap-01081. Complaint by

W.E. Jon Albrecht against Nabeel Slaieh. willful and malicious injury)) From: 4/17/19, 5/29/19

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nabeel Slaieh Represented By

George A Saba - INACTIVE -

Defendant(s):

Nabeel Slaieh Represented By Stephen B Mashney Bruce A Boice

Plaintiff(s):

W E Jon Albrecht Represented By William L Miltner Robert C Harvey

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By

D Edward Hays David Wood Matthew Grimshaw

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01307 Revere Financial Corporation v. OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a


#17.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01307. Complaint by

A. Cisneros against OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC CORPORATION, a California corporation, UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350). for Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 12/30/15, 2/24/16, 4/13/16, 6/22/16, 8/24/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 3/8/17, 7/12/17, 9/13/17, 11/15/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 7/25/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18,

11/14/18, 12/12/18, 12/19/18, 3/27/19, 6/12/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Represented By

Misty A Perry Isaacson

LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC Represented By

Misty Perry Isaacson

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat

Misty A Perry Isaacson


Chapter 7

UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC Represented By

Misty Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01163 Revere Financial Corporation v. Burns


#18.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01163. Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Don C. Burns. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)


From: 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 1/11/17, 3/8/17, 6/7/17, 8/2/17, 8/23/17, 11/8/17, 1/31/18, 4/25/18, 2/27/18, 6/12/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Don Cameron Burns Represented By Don C Burns

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Carmela Pagay Franklin R Fraley Jr


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01248 Revere Financial Corporation, a California corpora v. Roger, MD


#19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Amended Complaint (First) by Revere Financial Corporation and Jerry Wang, as State-Court Appointed Receiver by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation, a California corporation against Revere Financial Corporation, a California corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-8)


From: 4/25/18, 6/13/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18


EH   


Docket 82

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/11/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation, a Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Jerry Wang Represented By

Franklin R Fraley Jr Anthony J Napolitano

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

  1. Cisneros Represented By

    Chad V Haes

    D Edward Hays

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

    Franklin R Fraley Jr

    2:00 PM

    6:13-27611


    Douglas Jay Roger


    Chapter 7


    #20.00 CONT Objection to Claim #17 by Revere Financial Corporation

    (Holding date)


    From: 10/1/14, 11/5/14, 12/3/14, 12/15/14, 1/28/15, 4/15/15, 7/22/15, 9/23/15, 10/21/15, 11/18/15, 12/16/15, 1/13/16, 3/2/16, 5/4/16, 6/1/16, 9/28/16, 11/16/16,

    2/1/17, 2/16/17, 5/3/17, 6/14/17, 6/28/17, 9/20/17, 3/21/18, 6/27/18, 12/19/18,

    3/27/19, 5/8/19, 6/12/19


    EH      


    Docket 333

    Tentative Ruling:

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

    Trustee(s):

    Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

    Franklin R Fraley Jr

    2:00 PM

    6:18-20247


    Stephen Lynn Overmyer


    Chapter 7

    Adv#: 6:19-01039 McCune v. Overmyer


    #21.00 Motion For Summary Judgment Against Defendant/Debtor Stephen Overmyer Also #22

    EH       


    Docket 7


    Tentative Ruling:

    - NONE LISTED -


    Debtor(s):


    Party Information

    Stephen Lynn Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

    Defendant(s):

    Stephen Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

    Movant(s):

  2. Lynn McCune Represented By James A Rainboldt

Plaintiff(s):

B. Lynn McCune Represented By James A Rainboldt

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-20247


Stephen Lynn Overmyer


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01039 McCune v. Overmyer


#22.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01039. Complaint by

B. Lynn McCune against Stephen Overmyer . false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud))


From: 4/17/19, 7/31/19 Also #21

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephen Lynn Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

Defendant(s):

Stephen Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

Plaintiff(s):

B. Lynn McCune Represented By James A Rainboldt

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


#1.00 Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Cross-Complaint EH   

Docket 149

Tentative Ruling:

REAL ESTATE BROKER THERESA MANN’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD CROSS- COMPLAINT

BACKGROUND


On November 11, 2016, Plaintiffs Mark and Natasha Reynoso ("Plaintiffs") filed an adversarial proceeding against Douglas and Anne Goodman ("Defendants"). Plaintiffs sought to determine the dischargeability of their state court claim against Defendants for misrepresentation. The state court claim was based on the alleged misrepresentations by Defendants and Theresa Mann ("Mann"), Defendants’ real estate agent, in regard to the sale of Defendants’ home to Plaintiffs. This covered both the actual size of the home, as well as the repairs that needed to be performed on the home.


On June 6, 2017, Defendants filed their first cross-complaint against Mann and Jose Pastora. One May 14, 2019, Defendants filed their third, and most current cross- complaint against Mann and Pastora. Defendants, based on Plaintiffs’ claims, allege that it was Mann who made the misrepresentations to Plaintiffs as to the size of the home, and the state of repair of the home, and that Mann held sole responsibility for Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Defendants claim three grounds for relief: (1)- equitable comparative indemnity and apportionment of fault across cross defendants; (2)- total equitable indemnity against all cross defendants; and (3)- negligent misrepresentation.


Defendants request the following relief: (1)- a finding of total and complete indemnity for any judgment rendered against Defendants by Plaintiff; (2)- for judgment in proportionate share from each Cross-Defendant; (3)- for Defendants costs and expenses incurred in the defense of Plaintiff’s claim, as well as in bringing their cross-

11:00 AM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

claim against Mann and Pastora, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

On June 7, 2019, counsel for Defendants emailed counsel for Mann to inform him that Defendants and Plaintiffs had settled Plaintiffs’ claim. According to Defendants in their opposition to this motion to dismiss (addressed in greater detail below), the settlement was for $1,600 and involves the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim. A motion to approve compromise, or a motion to dismiss, as not yet been resolved in the adversarial complaint. In addition, the Court entered an order on July 19, 2019, granting a stipulation between Defendants and Pastora to dismiss Pastora from the cross-complaint.


Mann filed a motion on June 13, 2019, to dismiss the cross-complaint against Mann without leave to amend. Mann bases her argument on two main grounds. The first is that the settlement of the case between Plaintiffs and Defendants has removed the legal basis for the grounds for a claim of indemnification. This is because the settlement had removed any possibility for Defendants to actually be found liable for the claim, and contractual or implied indemnification requires a finding of liability. Second, the Plaintiff’s complaint for a finding of nondischargeability was not an appropriate claim to base a third-party complaint on. Third, and on a related note, the requested relief sought is outside of the jurisdiction of the Court as a monetary judgment.


Defendants filed their opposition to Mann’s motion to dismiss the cross-complaint on July 18, 2019. Defendants base their opposition on the grounds that, even if the case had been settled between Defendants and Plaintiffs, Defendants had suffered

$26,715.00 in damages from defending Plaintiffs’ claim, encompassing $1,600 from the settlement, and around $25,115 in attorneys’ fees and costs. They allege that the cross-claim had thus not been rendered moot by the settlement, as Defendants were seeking reimbursement from Mann for the damages she allegedly caused. Defendants also claim that the contract between Defendants and Mann included an attorneys’ fees and costs provision, which would allow Defendants to seek the fees and costs incurred in pursuing their claim against Mann.


DISCUSSION


Under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), made applicable in adversary proceedings through Rule 7012, a bankruptcy court may dismiss a complaint if it fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In reviewing a Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the trial court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

2001). However, the trial court need not accept as true conclusory allegations in a complaint or legal characterizations cast in the form of factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007);

Hartman v. Gilead Scis., Inc. (In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.), 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).


To avoid dismissal under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must aver in the complaint "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868

(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). It is axiomatic that a claim cannot be plausible when it has no legal basis. A dismissal under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) may be based either on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v.

Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008).


The Court will begin with Mann’s arguments that Defendants’ cross-complaint/third- party complaint against Mann lacks jurisdiction.


Defendants’ primary claim against Mann rests on their request for a monetary judgment against Mann, and Plaintiffs also requested a monetary judgment in their complaint against Defendants. Mann argues that bankruptcy courts do not have the jurisdiction to enter monetary judgments in relation to complaints for nondischargeability. Circuit courts are split as to whether bankruptcy courts have the jurisdiction to enter monetary judgments as part of nondischargeability complaints. 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 523.32 (Richard Levin and Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed.). However, the 9th Circuit is one of the circuits which has found that bankruptcy courts have this jurisdiction. See In re Kennedy, 108 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 1997). As such, the Court finds that it has the jurisdiction to hear a request for monetary judgment as part of an adversarial complaint based on a claim for nondischargeability.


Mann correctly argues that the matter before the Court isn’t a cross-complaint, but rather is a third-party complaint, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

F.R.C.P. 14(a)(1) (stating that actions that fall under the grounds of a third-party complaint, including a defendant’s complaint against a third party who may be liable for all or part of a claim against the defendant). Mann uses this to argue that it is improper for a third-party complaint to seek a monetary judgment when the complaint is attached to an adversarial proceeding in a bankruptcy court based on a complaint for nondischargeability. Mann cites to several cases from the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th Circuits in which third party complaints seeking monetary judgments were dismissed as improper when they stemmed from adversarial proceedings based on complaints for a finding of

11:00 AM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

nondischargeability. However, the Court restates that, unlike the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th Circuits, the 9th Circuit does permit monetary judgments in relation to complaints for nondischargeability. See In re Kennedy, 108 F.3d at 1018. As such, the Court finds that it has the jurisdiction to hear complaints for monetary judgment in relation to adversarial proceedings based on a complaint for nondischargeability, including third- party complaints for monetary judgments.


Next, the Court will consider Mann’s argument that the settling of the case between Plaintiffs and Defendants have rendered Defendants claim for indemnification against Mann moot. Mann’s primary argument is that indemnification is dependent on liability, and the settling of the case has removed any potential chance for Defendants to be found liable. However, California law permits a settling party to seek indemnification from a third party for an equitable portion of a settlement. C.f.

Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, 8 Cal. 4th 100, 118-9 (Cal. 1994) (reversing a trial court judgment granting a 30% indemnification of a settlement amount, on the grounds that the defendant had not independently proven the portion of the damages that were directly caused by the hospital. In other words, the appellate court found that the defendant could seek indemnification of a settlement with the plaintiff if the defendant could establish the indemnitor’s independent liability). As such, Defendants have stated a claim for which relief can be granted by requesting that Mann indemnify Defendants for either a part, or the total, of the settlement agreement between Defendants and Plaintiff.


Next, the Court will consider whether Defendants have stated a claim for which relief may be granted for the recovery of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Defendants in defending against Plaintiffs’ claim. Under Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1021.6, a party who prevails on a claim for implied indemnity may be awarded the attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the underlying complaint if the court finds that: (1) the indemnitee had been required to act in the protection of their interest by defending an action by a third person which stemmed from the tort of the indemnitor; (2) the indemnitor was properly notified of the demand to provide the defense and did not avail itself of the opportunity to do so; and (3) that the trier of fact determined that the indemnitee was without fault in the principal case which is the basis for the action in indemnity, or that the indemnitee had a final judgment entered in their favor granting a summary judgment, a nonsuit, or a directed verdict.


The claim for relief by Defendants against Mann for attorneys’ fees stems from their claim for implied indemnity against Mann. However, while the facts they have stated

11:00 AM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

may be sufficient to satisfy element (1), they are currently insufficient to satisfy the requirements of proper notification under element (2), and the settling of the claim between Defendants and Plaintiffs means that (3) is completely impossible, as a trier of fact will never determine whether Defendants were without fault, nor will there be a final judgment entered in Defendants’ favor. As such, since Defendants cannot meet

§ 1021.6, it does not appear that they can state a claim for which relief can be granted against Mann in relation to the reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred defending against Plaintiffs’ claim.


Finally, the Court will address Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses related to the bringing of the third-party complaints against Mann. The Court finds that Defendants have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.


As such, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the third-party complaint, and that the settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants have not rendered the third- party complaint moot. The Court is thus inclined to deny Mann’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint in regard to the claim for indemnification for the $1,600 in settlement proceeds paid by Defendants to Plaintiffs. In addition, the Court is also inclined to deny the motion to dismiss in regard to Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees in relation to the third-party claim brought against Mann. However, the Court is inclined to dismiss with prejudice Defendants’ claim against Mann for the attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred as a result of Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants.


TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: YES


THE COURT IS INCLINED TO DENY MOVANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AS TO REQUESTS FOR RELIEF NUMBERS 1 AND 2, REGARDING THE TOTAL AND COMPLETE INDEMNITY FOR ANY JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND FOR JUDGMENT IN PROPORTIONATE SHARE FROM EACH CROSS-DEFENDANT. DENY IN REGARD TO THE COSTS AND EXPENSES,

11:00 AM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES, INCURRED IN BRINGING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST MANN. GRANT IN REGARD TO THE COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Defendant(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

Theresa Mann Pro Se

Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

Theresa Mann Pro Se

Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

Plaintiff(s):

Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11766


Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:19-01084 SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. Yahya


#2.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01084. Complaint by SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION against Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Reza, Paul)


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-14277


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13


#3.00 Debtor's Motion to vacate dismissal order and reinstate Chapter 13 Case pursuant to F.R.C.P. 9023 and 11 U.S.C. Section 105


EH       


Docket 48

Tentative Ruling:

8/1/2019

BACKGROUND


On May 21, 2008, Cesar Orozco ("Debtor") filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition. On August 9, 2018, his Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed. On May 7, 2019, the Chapter 13 Trustee (‘Trustee") filed a motion to dismiss Debtor’s case for delinquency. On June 6, 2019, Trustee’s motion to dismiss was granted. On June 28, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal.


Debtor’s case was dismissed due to a two-month delinquency in plan payments. Debtor’s counsel alleges that Debtor fell behind because of a misunderstanding that the submission of a payment in January had made Debtor current on payments.

Instead, Debtor was one month short, as a new payment had come due in late January. Debtor’s counsel alleges that he attempted to reach Debtor prior to the hearing in June to address this problem, but was unable to due to Debtor having recently changed his cellphone number. Debtor now asserts that he has the funds to become current through the July plan payment.


Trustee filed a conditional acceptance of Debtor’s motion to vacate dismissal on July 1, 2019. Trustee’s conditions are that: 1- Debtor turns over $1,784 to become current on plan payments, and 2- that Debtor submits his 2018 state and federal tax returns and refunds to the Trustee.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13

DISCUSSION


Debtor bases his argument for vacating dismissal on F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) and (6), mistake and "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment," as well as the Court’s inherent equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), and the error rule under F.R.C.P. 61 which permits the setting aside of a judgment if to not do so otherwise would be inconsistent with substantial justice.


The problem with Debtor’s arguments is that: 1- the Court did not make an error under FRCP 61, the Debtor did, and 2- Debtor’s counsel did not make an error under FRCP 60(b)(1). Debtor was serially delinquent on plan payments within a few months of the confirmation of his plan, and this was the core root of the dismissal, not neglect or mistake by his counsel or the Court.


However, in light of Trustee’s conditional acceptance of Debtor’s motion, the Court is inclined to find grounds to vacate its dismissal of Debtor’s case under the "any other reason" language of F.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) and its inherent equitable powers under 11

U.S.C. § 105(a). If Debtor has the funds to become current on plan payments, and is prepared to turn over his tax returns and refund, then the Court finds that vacating dismissal would not cause an undue prejudicial impact to his creditors.


TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: NONE


THE COURT IS INCLINED TO GRANT THIS MOTION UNDER FRCP 60(B)(6) AND 11 U.S.C. § 105.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.



Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10084


Sandra Luz Torres


Chapter 13


#4.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sandra Luz Torres Represented By Jason B Cruz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11281


Nadia Michelle Lipscomb


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 5/9/19, 6/27/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nadia Michelle Lipscomb Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13796


Charles Anthony Anunciation and Lisa Rhea Anunciation


Chapter 13


#6.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim No 3-1 by Claimant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. As Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust


EH       


Docket 52

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/5/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Anthony Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Joint Debtor(s):

Lisa Rhea Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Movant(s):

Charles Anthony Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Lisa Rhea Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12699


Luis Enrique Chavez


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 6/27/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luis Enrique Chavez Represented By Giovanni Orantes

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12755


Salvador Caridad Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 6/27/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Salvador Caridad Rodriguez Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13123


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13


#9.00 Debtor's Motion to Disallow Claims No 2-1 filed by PYOD, LLC Also #10

EH       


Docket 27

Tentative Ruling:

8/1/2019

NO OPPOSITION


BACKGROUND:


On April 12, 2019, Susana O Corona ("Debtors") filed her Chapter 13 petition for bankruptcy.


On June 18, 2019, PYOD ("Creditor") filed a claim ("Claim 2-1") for $3,816.39 in outstanding retail debt stemming from moneys owed to Levitz Furniture, with a last payment date of February 23, 1999. Debtor argues that that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Creditor has failed to oppose Debtor’s objection, and the deadline for objection has passed.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13

When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13

See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 2-1 is based on retail debt stemming from the purchase of furniture. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of February 23, 1999. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 2-1 is unenforceable.


Furthermore, the Court deems failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


Service: Proper


Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISALLOWING Claim 2-1 in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.



Party Information

Debtor(s):

Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley Christopher J Langley

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13123


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13


#10.00 Debtor's Motion to Disallow Claims No 3-1 filed by PYOD, LLC Also #9

EH       


Docket 28

Tentative Ruling:

8/1/2019

NO OPPOSITION


BACKGROUND:


On April 12, 2019, Susana O Corona ("Debtors") filed her Chapter 13 petition for bankruptcy.


On June 18, 2019, PYOD ("Creditor") filed a claim ("Claim 3-1") for $4,497.00 in outstanding retail debt stemming from moneys owed to Sears, with a last payment date of August 4, 1999. Debtor argues that that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Creditor has failed to oppose Debtor’s objection, and the deadline for objection has passed.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13

When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13

See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 3-1 is based on retail debt originally owed to Sears. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last transaction date of August 4, 1999. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 3-1 is unenforceable.


Furthermore, the Court deems failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


Service: Proper


Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISALLOWING Claim 3-1 in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.



Party Information

Debtor(s):

Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Susana Olga Corona Represented By Christopher J Langley Christopher J Langley

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Susana Olga Corona


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13600


Ronnie L Minnifield


Chapter 13


#11.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ronnie L Minnifield Represented By John Habashy

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13629


Rogelio Marquez and Rosa M. Perea de Marquez


Chapter 13


#12.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rogelio Marquez Represented By Curtis R Aijala

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosa M. Perea de Marquez Represented By Curtis R Aijala

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13643


Timothy Potter


Chapter 13


#13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Timothy Potter Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13651


Juan Manuel Robles


Chapter 13


#14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juan Manuel Robles Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13684


Ryan Sollazzo and Reanna Sollazzo


Chapter 13


#15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ryan Sollazzo Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Reanna Sollazzo Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13691


Alicia M Smith


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alicia M Smith Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13706


Salem Eid Massoud


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Salem Eid Massoud Represented By Andrew Nguyen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13757


Vernita Goodwin


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vernita Goodwin Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13760


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13


#19.00 Motion for Setting Property Value Also #20

EH   


Docket 18

Tentative Ruling:

8/1/2019


BACKGROUND


On April 30, 2019, Jesus and Flora Hernandez Flores ("Debtors") filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. On June 5, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to value their 2016 Toyota RAV4 (the "Property"). The Property is currently subject to a

$22,732 lien held by Altura Credit Union ("Creditor"). The motion did not contain any evidence of the Property’s value. On July 12, 2019, Debtors filed a supplemental to their motion, containing a Carmax appraisal of the Property, which establishes the amount for which Carmax would purchase the Property.


Creditor filed an opposition on July 30, 2019. In it, Creditor claims that Debtors’ motion to value the property is in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(9), which does not permit the reduction of a secured claim stemming from a purchase money security interest incurred within a 910-day period prior to the petition date for the purchase of a motor vehicle acquired for a Debtors’ personal use.


DISCUSSION


First, the Court begins by noting that Debtors’ first motion did not contain any evidence to support their claimed valuation of the Property. Instead, Creditor only received 19 days’ notice of such an integral part of Debtors’ motion through the supplemental filed on July 12, 2019. While not fatal, the Court still finds this to be improper notice of the motion.

11:00 AM

CONT...


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13

As to the merits, one of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


However, a Chapter 13 plan cannot be confirmed with a § 506(a) claim bifurcation under § 1325(a)(5) if the claim being bifurcated is: (1)- a purchase money security interest, (2) incurred for the purchase of a motor vehicle, (3) acquired for the Debtors’ personal use, (4) that was taken out 910 days prior to the Chapter 13 petition. Here, Creditor is the holder of a purchase money security interest for a vehicle acquired for the Debtors’ personal use which was taken out 584 days prior to the petition date, as the retail installment contract was entered into by Debtors on September 23, 2017. As such, claim bifurcation is not available within this case for the Property. Even if it was, Debtors also failed to submit proper evidence of the Property’s value.


Assuming, arguendo, that § 1325(a)(5) did not apply, the Ninth Circuit has not presently established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtors have submitted a Carmax appraisal of the vehicle, which gave an appraisal offer of $12,500. This appears to completely miss the goal of valuation. Value under Morales is meant to establish what a retail merchant would charge when selling the Property, not what a retail merchant would purchase the Property for.

Debtors have provided the purchase price, which will almost certainly be substantially lower than the sale price, cutting against the Creditor’s interests.


TENTATIVE RULING

11:00 AM

CONT...

8/1/2019


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13


SERVICE: PROPER


OPPOSITION: YES


The Court is inclined to DENY Debtors’ motion to value the Property due to it being in contravention of the restrictions on claim bifurcation under § 1325(a)(5).

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

J Jesus Hernandez Flores Represented By Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Flora Hernandez Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

J Jesus Hernandez Flores Represented By Jenny L Doling Jenny L Doling Jenny L Doling

Flora Hernandez Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13760


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #19 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

J Jesus Hernandez Flores Represented By Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Flora Hernandez Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13761


M Evan Parker-Calderon and Elton Parker-Calderon


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

M Evan Parker-Calderon Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Elton Parker-Calderon Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13768


Daniel Ray Love and Fatin Badawi Love


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Ray Love Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Joint Debtor(s):

Fatin Badawi Love Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13806


Gonzalo Najera and Wendy Lomeli Najera


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gonzalo Najera Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Wendy Lomeli Najera Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13816


Briana Farquharson


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/18/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Briana Farquharson Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13838


Princis B Scott


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Princis B Scott Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13854


Janet Adams


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Janet Adams Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13855


Noel Guerrero Avalos and Veronica Cellular De Avalos


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Noel Guerrero Avalos Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Veronica Cellular De Avalos Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13874


Marisol Smith


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Marisol Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13876


Christopher Steven Henthorn and Christine Lynne Apodaca


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher Steven Henthorn Represented By Seema N Sood

Joint Debtor(s):

Christine Lynne Apodaca Represented By Seema N Sood

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13908


John Johnson, III


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/18/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

John Johnson III Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13911


Casildo Guerra


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Casildo Guerra Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13913


Ernesto Sandoval


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ernesto Sandoval Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13931


Juan E Lopez and Maria L Lopez


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juan E Lopez Represented By

Anthony Wilaras

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria L Lopez Represented By Anthony Wilaras

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13939


Armando Richard Moreno


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Armando Richard Moreno Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13942


Steven Eric Armil and Karen Ann Savel


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Steven Eric Armil Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Karen Ann Savel Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13986


Eva Monroe


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eva Monroe Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14025


Patricia Ann Cook


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Patricia Ann Cook Represented By Brad Weil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14029


Cynthia Molina Gomez


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cynthia Molina Gomez Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14067


Manuel Gurrola and Susan Gurrola


Chapter 7


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 7/23/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Manuel Gurrola Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Joint Debtor(s):

Susan Gurrola Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14078


Raymond Edward Reeley


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 5/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Raymond Edward Reeley Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14136


Jose Omar Zapata


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Omar Zapata Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14140


Sandra Kay Ramirez


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/13/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sandra Kay Ramirez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14141


Rafael Gonzalez and Sonia Cardenas


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

Joint Debtor(s):

Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14142


Marcelino Carrillo


Chapter 13


#45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/13/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Marcelino Carrillo Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14155


Michael Palumbo


Chapter 13


#46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Palumbo Represented By David L Nelson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14173


Francine McGwire


Chapter 13


#47.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/3/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Francine McGwire Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod (MH) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14183


Darryle Barker


Chapter 13


#48.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Darryle Barker Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14197


Robert J Tafoya


Chapter 13


#49.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Robert J Tafoya Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14207


Matthew James Razukas


Chapter 13


#50.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/14/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Matthew James Razukas Represented By

Shawn Anthony Doan

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14268


Christopher Monroe and Aysheh Spicer


Chapter 13


#51.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher Monroe Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Aysheh Spicer Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14335


Bobby G Hairston and Marilyn D Hairston


Chapter 13


#52.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/31/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Bobby G Hairston Represented By Kevin Tang

Joint Debtor(s):

Marilyn D Hairston Represented By Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14338


Jamie Marie Saucedo


Chapter 13


#53.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jamie Marie Saucedo Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14341


Jacques Vashonne Powers


Chapter 13


#54.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jacques Vashonne Powers Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14353


Pablo Vidal, Jr


Chapter 13


#55.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pablo Vidal Jr Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14370


Germaine Denice Carr


Chapter 13


#56.00 Debtor's Motion for Order Determining Value of Collateral with Partnership Federal Credit Union re: 2016 Buick Enclave Convenience


Also #57 EH    

Docket 16

Tentative Ruling:

BACKGROUND


On May 20, 2019, Germaine Carr ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2016 Buick Enclave (the "Property"). The Partnership Federal Credit Union ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property in the lien amount of $30,564.05.

Debtor filed this motion to value the Property on July 2, 2019. She seeks a value of

$20,025, and has offered in support a NADAguides used car report clean retail valuation.


DISCUSSION



Debtor has properly submitted a Kelley Blue Book clean retail valuation for the vehicle. As such, the Court is inclined to find that Debtor has properly supported their claimed valuation of $20,025 under the requirements of In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008). However, it is unclear how the unsecured value of Creditor’s claim would be $20,422, as requested by Debtor, since Debtor states that the current lien value is $30,564.05. This is backed by the account statement for the period ending April , 2019, which states that the account balance on the Property is

$30,564.05.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Germaine Denice Carr


Chapter 13

TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


SERVICE: PROPER


OPPOSITION: NONE


The Court is inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion to value their 2016 Buick Enclave at $20,025. Debtor is to explain to the Court what the resulting unsecured claim should be.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Germaine Denice Carr Represented By Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

Germaine Denice Carr Represented By Michael E Clark

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14370


Germaine Denice Carr


Chapter 13


#57.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #56 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Germaine Denice Carr Represented By Michael E Clark

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14384


Sheila M. Malone


Chapter 13


#58.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sheila M. Malone Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14387


Jeffrey Allan Cohn


Chapter 13


#59.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeffrey Allan Cohn Represented By Stephen L Burton

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14407


Jason Benjamin Marlow and Linda Sue Marlow


Chapter 13


#60.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jason Benjamin Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Linda Sue Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14413


Jackqueline D Mitchell


Chapter 13


#61.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jackqueline D Mitchell Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14425


La Quetta Delaine Bush Simmons


Chapter 13


#62.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

La Quetta Delaine Bush Simmons Represented By

Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14426


Lorena Valencia Gonzalez


Chapter 13


#63.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lorena Valencia Gonzalez Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14462


MaryLou Campo De Leon


Chapter 13


#64.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

MaryLou Campo De Leon Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14467


David Patrick Hale


Chapter 13


#65.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David Patrick Hale Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14476


Beth Alanna Russell


Chapter 7


#66.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 6/18/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Beth Alanna Russell Represented By Stephen K Moran

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-14687


Vernia Jean Mosby


Chapter 13


#67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 125


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vernia Jean Mosby Represented By Nancy Korompis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-17561


Cresencio Ramirez Ramirez and Maria Olga Ramirez


Chapter 13


#68.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/23/19, 6/6/19, 7/11/19

EH   


Docket 153


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cresencio Ramirez Ramirez Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Olga Ramirez Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-22033


Shyla L. Montgomery


Chapter 13


#69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 111


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Shyla L. Montgomery Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-15119


Rodolfo Domingo Plado and Esmenia Rivera Plado


Chapter 13


#70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 69


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rodolfo Domingo Plado Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Esmenia Rivera Plado Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18082


Joseph John Vargas and Lydia Vargas


Chapter 13


#71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 130


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph John Vargas Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Lydia Vargas Represented By

Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11167


Victor Thomas Lawton


Chapter 13


#72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 62


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-12011


Joshua Lawrence Ferguson and Wendy Mae Ferguson


Chapter 13


#73.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 6/27/19

EH   


Docket 58


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joshua Lawrence Ferguson Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Joint Debtor(s):

Wendy Mae Ferguson Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13583


William J Schaefer and Jennifer L. Schaefer


Chapter 13


#74.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 60

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

William J Schaefer Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer L. Schaefer Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17612


Jose Guadalupe Sandoval


Chapter 13


#75.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/11/19

EH       


Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Guadalupe Sandoval Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-18482


Roberto Garcia Garcia and Maria Martha Garcia


Chapter 13


#76.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 70


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Roberto Garcia Garcia Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Martha Garcia Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-18720


Patricia Morales


Chapter 13


#77.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 77

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/31/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Patricia Morales Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-19614


Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


Chapter 13


#78.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/11/19

EH       


Docket 97

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/16/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10456


David Allen Rose, Jr. and Karen Sue Rose


Chapter 13


#79.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David Allen Rose Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Karen Sue Rose Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11652


Gwendolyn Priscilla Saunders


Chapter 13


#80.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/11/19

EH       


Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gwendolyn Priscilla Saunders Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12022


Maribel M Vasquez


Chapter 13


#81.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/11/19

EH       


Docket 50


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maribel M Vasquez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13172


Michelle Cadena Quinn


Chapter 13


#82.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/9/19, 6/6/19, 6/27/19

EH   


Docket 65


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michelle Cadena Quinn Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13906


Ruby Lee Frazier


Chapter 13


#83.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 70

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

7/1/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ruby Lee Frazier Represented By Michael D Franco

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15220


Peter Ruiz


Chapter 13


#84.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Peter Ruiz Represented By

Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17597


David Meisland


Chapter 13


#85.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 50


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David Meisland Represented By Nima S Vokshori

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17927


Ertun Reshat and Hale Reshat


Chapter 13


#86.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 33

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/31/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ertun Reshat Represented By

April E Roberts

Joint Debtor(s):

Hale Reshat Represented By

April E Roberts

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-19494


Rachel Ann Sullivan


Chapter 13


#87.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rachel Ann Sullivan Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-19696


Corinthia A. Williams


Chapter 13


#88.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Corinthia A. Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20296


Daniel Lee Crump


Chapter 13


#89.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/11/19

EH   


Docket 37

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Lee Crump Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10669


Michael Anthony Delgado, III


Chapter 13


#90.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Anthony Delgado III Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17676


Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez


Chapter 13


#91.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20002


Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


Chapter 13


#92.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

12:00 PM

6:18-13057


Desert Ice Castle, LLC


Chapter 7


#93.00 CONT Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy Between Chapter 7 Trustee, Debtor, Anthony Yue Ming Liu, Ice Castle, Inc. and Magic Ice, LLC Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019


From: 7/31/19, 7/30/19 EH       


Docket 91

Tentative Ruling:


BACKGROUND


Debtor Desert Ice Castle ("Debtor") filed a voluntary Ch. 7 petition on April 13, 2018. Creditor Andrzej Luczynski ("Creditor") filed two claims against Debtor, one for

$3,200,000 related to the breach of joint venture between the two, and one for anticipated judgment from state court litigation for $1,218,135.54. Creditor’s associated company, Z&M Trading, Inc., also filed a claim against Debtor for attorney fees to be derived from the anticipated state court judgment.


On January 31, 2019, the Ch. 7 Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Anthony Ming Liu ("Liu"), the principal of Debtor, for alleged pre-petition transfers from Debtor to Liu. Liu filed his own bankruptcy petition. On June 25, 2019, Trustee reached an allegedly global agreement with Liu, Z&M, Creditor, and Desert Ice Castle, which will apply in both this, and Liu’s case. The claimed primary terms of the agreement is the payment of $60,000 from Liu to Trustee, combined with a dismissal of the adversarial proceeding with prejudice, and the withdrawal of Creditor’s proofs of claim and Trustee’s proof of claim in Liu’s bankruptcy case.


However, the actual settlement agreement provided has no signature from Creditor, and the agreement terms do not state that Creditor will engage in a mutual release of claims between him and Debtor, as alleged by Trustee, or that Creditor will withdraw his proofs of claims.

On July 3, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to approve the compromise under Rule 9019.

12:00 PM

CONT...


Desert Ice Castle, LLC


Chapter 7

On July 25, 2019, the matter was advanced to July 30, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.


DISCUSSION



FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.


Creditor’s claims are the vast bulk of pre-petition claims against Debtor, and are also the root of the adversarial proceeding between Trustee and Debtor. In addition, Trustee also claims that the agreement settles the controversy between Creditor and Debtor. While Creditor is not a party to the settlement agreement, the Court notes that the agreement is expressly conditioned on the withdrawal of Creditor’s proofs of claim. Otherwise, the Court finds that Trustee has sufficiently addressed the A&C Properties standard.


TENTATIVE RULING



7/30/2019

12:00 PM

CONT...


Desert Ice Castle, LLC


Chapter 7

Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT Trustee’s motion to approve compromise. APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Desert Ice Castle, LLC Represented By Paul M Stoddard

Movant(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

12:00 PM

6:19-11267


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


#94.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Causes of Action .


MOVANT: ANDRZEJ LUCZYNSKI AND Z&M TRADING, INC. From: 4/16/19, 4/30/19, 5/21/19, 6/11/19, 6/25/19, 7/16/19, 7/30/19 Also #95 - #99

EH   


Docket 38

Tentative Ruling: 4/30/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.


On February 19, 2019, Anthony Yue Ming Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On Schedule F, Debtor listed Andrzej Luczynski ("Movant") as the holder of an unsecured claim of $1,380,000 relating to a civil lawsuit.


On March 12, 2019, Movant filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for tortious exclusion of joint venturer, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and wrongful eviction. A state court hearing on Debtor’s objections to the tentative decision and proposed judgment had been scheduled for February 20, 2019, but was ultimately postponed due to the instant bankruptcy filing. It appears from the contents of the motion that Movant is only requesting to have the state court enter judgment, thereby liquidating Movant’s claim.


On April 2, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. The crux of Debtor’s opposition is that the relief from the automatic stay is unnecessary because Movant’s claim has been

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11

effectively liquidated. Debtor notes that "[t]he only issue remaining is a determination of any costs and attorney’s fees, which Debtor has attempted to review for reasonableness in hopes that the parties could avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses regarding the same." [Dkt. No. 49, pg. 4, lines 10-12]. On April 9, 2019, Movant filed a reply, effectively arguing that Debtor’s opposition does not contain a legal basis upon which relief from stay could be denied.


When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:

  1. Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues;

  2. the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case;

  3. whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."

In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further stated:

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11

litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.


Here, the Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. First, the relief requested would result in a complete resolution of the issues. Debtor’s argument that relief from stay is not necessary to resolve the issue, because the issue could be resolved through the claim objection process in bankruptcy court, is not persuasive to the Court because it does not directly address the first Curtis factor and because, presumably, the state court is in a better position to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceedings. Likewise, the second factor weighs in favor of the relief requested because the entry of a judgment in state court will not interfere with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Debtor has not raised a plausible argument contending otherwise. A choice by Debtor to possibly incur attorney fees arguing the amount of Movant’s fees and costs incurred in the state court proceeding does not constitute interference with the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Finally, the Court finds that the tenth through twelfth Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from stay, because the state court proceeding progressed to the point where it was ready for trial, and the state court is in a better position to judge the reasonableness of the fees and costs incurred in its own proceeding.


The Court finds that the third through nonth Curtis factors are largely irrelevant in this situation and do not materially affect the Court’s analysis. Additionally, the Court is not inclined to find that the instant bankruptcy was filed in bad faith. Movant’s only argument made to support a bad faith finding is that the instant case was filed on the eve of the anticipated state court judgment. Noting that Debtor scheduled Movant’s claim and does not appear to be attempting to undermine the state court proceeding, the Court cannot conclude that Debtor is acting on bad faith simply because he is attempting to satisfy Movant’s claim through a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.


The Court is inclined to GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY request for relief under ¶ 7 for lack of cause shown.

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


APPEARANCES REQUIRED


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Courtesy NEF Represented By Dawn M Coulson Paul M Stoddard Mark W Edelstein

12:00 PM

6:19-11267


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


#95.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Dismiss Bankruptcy Case From: 7/30/19

Also #94 - #99


EH      


Docket 97

Tentative Ruling:

7/30/19

BACKGROUND


On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with all primary creditors, specifically (a) Luczynski and Z&M;

  1. Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the

    12:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.


    Also on July 9, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. Trustee has filed a condition non-opposition, asking that: (a) the settlement payment be made prior to the lodging of a dismissal order; and (b) Luczynski withdraw the proofs of claims filed in the bankruptcy case of Desert Ice Castle, LLC.


    DISCUSSION



    11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) states:


    Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (c), on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause unless the court determines that the appointment under section 1104(a) of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate.


    Section 1112(b)(4) provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of cause. While Debtor is a party in interest pursuant to § 1109(b), the examples of cause outlined in § 1112(b)(4) are addressing to a non-debtor party. When a Chapter 11 debtor satisfies all claims against the estate without the use of a plan, however, the creditors no longer have any interest in the bankruptcy case moving forward. Additionally, in this case, Debtor has waived discharge, so, likewise, the Debtor would appear to have no interest in the case moving forward. Therefore, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISMISSING the case on the conditions set forth in Debtor’s motion and Trustee’s conditional non-opposition, and subject to the issues raised in the Court’s tentative ruling relating to the compromise motions.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    12:00 PM

    CONT...


    Debtor(s):


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu

    Party Information


    Chapter 11

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein

    Movant(s):

    Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

    Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

    12:00 PM

    6:19-11267


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    #96.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Approve Compormise with Mark Edelstein From: 7/30/19

    Also #94 - #99


    EH      


    Docket 95

    Tentative Ruling:

    7/30/19

    BACKGROUND


    On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


    The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


    On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with (a) Luczynski and Z&M; (b) Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. The Court did not receive any timely opposition to the compromise motions.

    12:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    The pertinent facts of the three compromises are as follows:


    1. Debtor to pay Lucynski and Z&M $3,156,621.53, with 7% interest, as follows:

      1. $250,000 within one week of the effective date of settlement; (b) $250,000 within sixty days of first payment; (c) $250,000 within sixty days of second payment; and (d) $58,000/month thereafter until satisfying the total amount. The payment obligations of Debtor are to be secured by a deed of trust against certain real property of Debtor.


    2. Debtor to pay Trustee $60,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


    3. Debtor to pay Edelstein $45,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


The settlement resolves all claims against Debtor, and contains a mutual release of all claims, and a dismissal of all pending actions. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.


DISCUSSION


  1. Legal Standard for Approving Compromise


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), Debtor has all the rights and duties of a trustee. Rule 9019(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to approve a compromise or settlement on the trustee's motion and after notice and a hearing. The bankruptcy court must consider all "factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968). In other words, the bankruptcy court must find that the settlement is "fair and equitable" in order to approve it. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986).

    12:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11


    In conducting this inquiry, the bankruptcy court must consider the following factors:

    1. the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises.


Id.

The bankruptcy court enjoys broad discretion in approving a compromise because it "is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness [of it] " United

States v. Alaska Nat'l Bank (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). As stated in A & C Props.:


The purpose of a compromise agreement is to allow the trustee and the creditors to avoid the expenses and burdens associated with litigating sharply contested and dubious claims. The law favors compromise and not litigation for its own sake, and as long as the bankruptcy court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed.

Id. (citations omitted).


The factual situation here is rather unique because Debtor has reached settlements with all of the significant creditors in this bankruptcy case, while asserting that he will pay off the two small creditors in full. Therefore, all creditors: (a) will be paid off in full; or (b) have expressly consented to the treatment of their claim. As a result, the final A&C factor, the interests of creditors, which in this situation is the predominant concern when assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, strongly, probably conclusively weighs in favor of settlement. As noted by Debtor, the second A&C factor is inapplicable here because Debtor is not trying to collect from the other parties to the settlement. And the first and third factors would appear to also weigh in favor of settlement, given that Debtor was faced with a tentative ruling indicating that the Court was inclined to rule against him, and because the amount of the claims at issue would likely cause significant litigation.

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11

There is one technical issue that remains, applicable to both the three compromise motions, as well as the concurrently scheduled motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. Debtor, by seeking a dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy cases and by settling with the three primary creditors, is, in effect, either proposing a sub rosa plan or seeking a structured dismissal (or both); such a proposal cannot violate the Code’s priority scheme. See, e.g., In re Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 780 F.2d 1223, 1226 (5th Cir. 1986) ("§ 363 does not authorize a debtor and the bankruptcy court ‘to short circuit the requirements of a reorganization plan by establishing the terms of the plan sub rosa in connection’ with a proposed transaction."); see also Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 984 (2017) ("The priority system applicable to those distributions has long been considered fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code's operation. The importance of the priority system leads us to expect more than simple statutory silence if, and when, Congress were to intend a major departure. Put somewhat more directly, we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans.").


Debtor seems to have anticipated this issue, noting in all three compromise motions and the motion to dismiss, that he would pay off the two non-settling creditors who filed proofs of claims, and also identifying the various scheduled creditors who did not file proofs of claims. There are, however, two remaining issues that have not been resolved. First, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(b)(1) provides that, in Chapter 11 cases, a creditor whose claim is scheduled by Debtor, generally need not file a proof of claim, but may rely on the amount admitted by Debtor instead. Debtor’s declaration in the motion to dismiss addresses this to some degree, but it is not sufficient to overcome the prohibitions against paying outside of the priority scheme. Second, the claims bar date for non-governmental claims is August 19, 2019, and, therefore, has not yet expired, potentially allowing for the filing of additional priority claims.


TENTATIVE RULING



Debtor to address the two issues raised in the preceding paragraph, and, specifically, whether and how remaining creditors should be paid.

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

12:00 PM

6:19-11267


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


#97.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Approve Compromise with Andrzelj Luczynski and Z&M Trading, Inc.


From: 7/30/19 Also #94 - #99

EH      


Docket 96

Tentative Ruling:

7/30/19

BACKGROUND


On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with (a) Luczynski and Z&M; (b) Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. The

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11

Court did not receive any timely opposition to the compromise motions.


The pertinent facts of the three compromises are as follows:


  1. Debtor to pay Lucynski and Z&M $3,156,621.53, with 7% interest, as follows:

    1. $250,000 within one week of the effective date of settlement; (b) $250,000 within sixty days of first payment; (c) $250,000 within sixty days of second payment; and (d) $58,000/month thereafter until satisfying the total amount. The payment obligations of Debtor are to be secured by a deed of trust against certain real property of Debtor.


  2. Debtor to pay Trustee $60,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


  3. Debtor to pay Edelstein $45,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


The settlement resolves all claims against Debtor, and contains a mutual release of all claims, and a dismissal of all pending actions. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.


DISCUSSION


  1. Legal Standard for Approving Compromise


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), Debtor has all the rights and duties of a trustee. Rule 9019(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to approve a compromise or settlement on the trustee's motion and after notice and a hearing. The bankruptcy court must consider all "factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968). In other words, the bankruptcy court must find that the settlement is "fair and equitable" in order to approve it. Martin v. Kane (In re

    12:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986).

    In conducting this inquiry, the bankruptcy court must consider the following factors:

    1. the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises.


Id.

The bankruptcy court enjoys broad discretion in approving a compromise because it "is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness [of it] " United

States v. Alaska Nat'l Bank (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). As stated in A & C Props.:


The purpose of a compromise agreement is to allow the trustee and the creditors to avoid the expenses and burdens associated with litigating sharply contested and dubious claims. The law favors compromise and not litigation for its own sake, and as long as the bankruptcy court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed.

Id. (citations omitted).


The factual situation here is rather unique because Debtor has reached settlements with all of the significant creditors in this bankruptcy case, while asserting that he will pay off the two small creditors in full. Therefore, all creditors: (a) will be paid off in full; or (b) have expressly consented to the treatment of their claim. As a result, the final A&C factor, the interests of creditors, which in this situation is the predominant concern when assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, strongly, probably conclusively weighs in favor of settlement. As noted by Debtor, the second A&C factor is inapplicable here because Debtor is not trying to collect from the other parties to the settlement. And the first and third factors would appear to also weigh in favor of settlement, given that Debtor was faced with a tentative ruling indicating that the Court was inclined to rule against him, and because the amount of the claims at issue would likely cause significant litigation.

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11

There is one technical issue that remains, applicable to both the three compromise motions, as well as the concurrently scheduled motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. Debtor, by seeking a dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy cases and by settling with the three primary creditors, is, in effect, either proposing a sub rosa plan or seeking a structured dismissal (or both); such a proposal cannot violate the Code’s priority scheme. See, e.g., In re Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 780 F.2d 1223, 1226 (5th Cir. 1986) ("§ 363 does not authorize a debtor and the bankruptcy court ‘to short circuit the requirements of a reorganization plan by establishing the terms of the plan sub rosa in connection’ with a proposed transaction."); see also Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 984 (2017) ("The priority system applicable to those distributions has long been considered fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code's operation. The importance of the priority system leads us to expect more than simple statutory silence if, and when, Congress were to intend a major departure. Put somewhat more directly, we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans.").


Debtor seems to have anticipated this issue, noting in all three compromise motions and the motion to dismiss, that he would pay off the two non-settling creditors who filed proofs of claims, and also identifying the various scheduled creditors who did not file proofs of claims. There are, however, two remaining issues that have not been resolved. First, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(b)(1) provides that, in Chapter 11 cases, a creditor whose claim is scheduled by Debtor, generally need not file a proof of claim, but may rely on the amount admitted by Debtor instead. Debtor’s declaration in the motion to dismiss addresses this to some degree, but it is not sufficient to overcome the prohibitions against paying outside of the priority scheme. Second, the claims bar date for non-governmental claims is August 19, 2019, and, therefore, has not yet expired, potentially allowing for the filing of additional priority claims.


TENTATIVE RULING



Debtor to address the two issues raised in the preceding paragraph, and, specifically, whether and how remaining creditors should be paid.

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

12:00 PM

6:19-11267


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11


#98.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Approve Compromise with Trustee for Chapter 7 Estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC


From: 7/30/19 Also #94 - #99

EH    


Docket 94

Tentative Ruling:

7/30/19

BACKGROUND


On February 19, 2019, Anthony Liu ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On June 17, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between UST and Debtor which provided for waiver of discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(4).


The claims bar date for non-governmental claims was May 29, 2019. Seven claims were filed in the instant case. The four primary creditors of Debtor are: (1) Andrzej Luczynski ("Luczynski") ($2,790,321.07); (2) Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Desert Ice Castle, LLC ("Trustee") ($1,863,672.10)1; (3) Z&M Trading, Inc. ("Z&M") ($662,453.70); and (4) the Law Offices of Mark W. Edelstein APC ("Edelstein") ($63,620.96).


On July 9, 2019, Debtor filed three motions to approve compromise, reflecting settlements reached with (a) Luczynski and Z&M; (b) Trustee; and (c) Edelstein. The

12:00 PM

CONT...


Anthony Yue Ming Liu


Chapter 11

Court did not receive any timely opposition to the compromise motions.


The pertinent facts of the three compromises are as follows:


  1. Debtor to pay Lucynski and Z&M $3,156,621.53, with 7% interest, as follows:

    1. $250,000 within one week of the effective date of settlement; (b) $250,000 within sixty days of first payment; (c) $250,000 within sixty days of second payment; and (d) $58,000/month thereafter until satisfying the total amount. The payment obligations of Debtor are to be secured by a deed of trust against certain real property of Debtor.


  2. Debtor to pay Trustee $60,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


  3. Debtor to pay Edelstein $45,000 within one week of the effective date of the settlement.


The settlement resolves all claims against Debtor, and contains a mutual release of all claims, and a dismissal of all pending actions. Debtor has indicated that he will pay off, in full, the only two claims not subject to the settlement, which total $8,270.87.


DISCUSSION


  1. Legal Standard for Approving Compromise


    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), Debtor has all the rights and duties of a trustee. Rule 9019(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to approve a compromise or settlement on the trustee's motion and after notice and a hearing. The bankruptcy court must consider all "factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968). In other words, the bankruptcy court must find that the settlement is "fair and equitable" in order to approve it. Martin v. Kane (In re

    12:00 PM

    CONT...


    Anthony Yue Ming Liu


    Chapter 11

    A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986).

    In conducting this inquiry, the bankruptcy court must consider the following factors:

    1. the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises.


      Id.

      The bankruptcy court enjoys broad discretion in approving a compromise because it "is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness [of it] " United

      States v. Alaska Nat'l Bank (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). As stated in A & C Props.:


      The purpose of a compromise agreement is to allow the trustee and the creditors to avoid the expenses and burdens associated with litigating sharply contested and dubious claims. The law favors compromise and not litigation for its own sake, and as long as the bankruptcy court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed.

      Id. (citations omitted).


      The factual situation here is rather unique because Debtor has reached settlements with all of the significant creditors in this bankruptcy case, while asserting that he will pay off the two small creditors in full. Therefore, all creditors: (a) will be paid off in full; or (b) have expressly consented to the treatment of their claim. As a result, the final A&C factor, the interests of creditors, which in this situation is the predominant concern when assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, strongly, probably conclusively weighs in favor of settlement. As noted by Debtor, the second A&C factor is inapplicable here because Debtor is not trying to collect from the other parties to the settlement. And the first and third factors would appear to also weigh in favor of settlement, given that Debtor was faced with a tentative ruling indicating that the Court was inclined to rule against him, and because the amount of the claims at issue would likely cause significant litigation.

      12:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11

      There is one technical issue that remains, applicable to both the three compromise motions, as well as the concurrently scheduled motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case. Debtor, by seeking a dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy cases and by settling with the three primary creditors, is, in effect, either proposing a sub rosa plan or seeking a structured dismissal (or both); such a proposal cannot violate the Code’s priority scheme. See, e.g., In re Cont'l Air Lines, Inc., 780 F.2d 1223, 1226 (5th Cir. 1986) ("§ 363 does not authorize a debtor and the bankruptcy court ‘to short circuit the requirements of a reorganization plan by establishing the terms of the plan sub rosa in connection’ with a proposed transaction."); see also Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 984 (2017) ("The priority system applicable to those distributions has long been considered fundamental to the Bankruptcy Code's operation. The importance of the priority system leads us to expect more than simple statutory silence if, and when, Congress were to intend a major departure. Put somewhat more directly, we would expect to see some affirmative indication of intent if Congress actually meant to make structured dismissals a backdoor means to achieve the exact kind of nonconsensual priority-violating final distributions that the Code prohibits in Chapter 7 liquidations and Chapter 11 plans.").


      Debtor seems to have anticipated this issue, noting in all three compromise motions and the motion to dismiss, that he would pay off the two non-settling creditors who filed proofs of claims, and also identifying the various scheduled creditors who did not file proofs of claims. There are, however, two remaining issues that have not been resolved. First, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3003(b)(1) provides that, in Chapter 11 cases, a creditor whose claim is scheduled by Debtor, generally need not file a proof of claim, but may rely on the amount admitted by Debtor instead. Debtor’s declaration in the motion to dismiss addresses this to some degree, but it is not sufficient to overcome the prohibitions against paying outside of the priority scheme. Second, the claims bar date for non-governmental claims is August 19, 2019, and, therefore, has not yet expired, potentially allowing for the filing of additional priority claims.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      Debtor to address the two issues raised in the preceding paragraph, and, specifically, whether and how remaining creditors should be paid.

      12:00 PM

      CONT...


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      12:00 PM

      6:19-11267


      Anthony Yue Ming Liu


      Chapter 11


      #99.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 3/26/19; 6/25/19, 7/16/19, 7/30/19 Also #94 - #98

      EH   


      Docket 5


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Anthony Yue Ming Liu Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      1:00 PM

      6:19-15398


      Narnina Nicole Delores Riggins


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Debtor's motion for violation of the stay EH   

      Docket 0


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Narnina Nicole Delores Riggins Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:15-21418


      James Lloyd Walker


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Emergency Motion For Amended Order: (1) Approving The Sale Of Real Property Of The Estate Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1); (2) Approving Overbid Procedure As Proposed Herein; (3) Approving Payment Of Broker(s) Commission; (4) Determination That The Proposed Buyer Is A Good Faith Purchaser Under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m); And (5) Waiver Of The Stay Under FRBP 6004(h)


      EH   


      Docket 194

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      James Lloyd Walker Represented By

      Andrew Edward Smyth William J Smyth

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10155

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez

      Chapter 11

      #2.00 Motion To Accept Contribution Funds To Pay The Secured Second Trust Deed Holder In Full For The Property Located At 3095 Ocelot Cir, Corona, Ca. 92882 Under Bankruptcy Code Section 105(A)

      EH   

      Docket 150

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan

      1:00 PM

      6:13-28666

      Mildred Goodridge Crawford

      Chapter 13

      #1.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 244

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mildred Goodridge Crawford Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-12287

      Roger A Zorn, Jr. and Lisa J Zorn

      Chapter 13

      #2.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 117

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Roger A Zorn Jr. Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lisa J Zorn Represented By

      Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-13327


      Diane Marie Harris


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 102

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/29/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Diane Marie Harris Represented By M Erik Clark

      Michael E Clark Nancy B Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-13510

      Carmen Lucya Mendez

      Chapter 13

      #4.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 109

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carmen Lucya Mendez Represented By Sara E Razavi

      Matthew D Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-14309

      Sean Alan Bruce

      Chapter 13

      #5.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 53

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sean Alan Bruce Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-15246

      David J Macias and Martha Macias

      Chapter 13

      #6.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 79

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David J Macias Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Martha Macias Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-16730

      Juanita M Kawakami

      Chapter 13

      #7.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 91

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Juanita M Kawakami Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-17491

      Rosalie Estella Crouch

      Chapter 13

      #8.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 108

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rosalie Estella Crouch Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-18156

      Jose Luis Gutierrez and Patricia Gutierrez

      Chapter 13

      #9.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 74

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/25/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Luis Gutierrez Represented By Kelly Warren

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Patricia Gutierrez Represented By Kelly Warren

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-18589

      Igor Sokolov and Galina Sokolova

      Chapter 13

      #10.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 139

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Igor Sokolov Represented By

      Alla Tenina

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Galina Sokolova Represented By Alla Tenina

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-19520

      Jeffrey B Jordan

      Chapter 13

      #11.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 63

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jeffrey B Jordan Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-20348

      Frederick Rudy Deveau and Wendy Jo Deveau

      Chapter 13

      #12.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 83

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/22/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Frederick Rudy Deveau Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Wendy Jo Deveau Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-21377

      Adam Max Thewes and Kristine Ann Thewes

      Chapter 13

      #13.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 85

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adam Max Thewes Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kristine Ann Thewes Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-21454

      Matilde Lopez and Rene Zamora

      Chapter 13

      #14.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 69

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Matilde Lopez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rene Zamora Represented By

      Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-22951


      Wilfred David Pascual


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 79

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Wilfred David Pascual Represented By Lisa H Robinson John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-23150

      Vivian Munson

      Chapter 13

      #16.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 259

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Vivian Munson Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-23319

      Lamar Surpell Bell

      Chapter 13

      #17.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 58

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lamar Surpell Bell Represented By

      D Justin Harelik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-24327

      Jesus Cardiel Castro and Deborah Jean Castro

      Chapter 13

      #18.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 64

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus Cardiel Castro Represented By James P Doan

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Deborah Jean Castro Represented By James P Doan

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:14-24888

      Jesus Padilla Simental

      Chapter 13

      #19.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 100

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-10440

      Kevin Clark Schumpert and Idella Lynn Vanlue-Schumpert

      Chapter 13

      #20.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 53

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kevin Clark Schumpert Represented By Sunita N Sood

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Idella Lynn Vanlue-Schumpert Represented By Sunita N Sood

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-13218

      Ramiro J Cruz and Norma Idalia Cruz

      Chapter 13

      #21.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 141

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ramiro J Cruz Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Norma Idalia Cruz Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-13535

      Gilbert Alfred Torrez, Sr. and Emily Torrez

      Chapter 13

      #22.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 89

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gilbert Alfred Torrez Sr. Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Emily Torrez Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-15353


      Maria Graciala Castro


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Maria Graciala Castro Represented By William E Windham

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-15522

      Scott Allan Oswald and Lisa Frances Oswald

      Chapter 13

      #24.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 102

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Scott Allan Oswald Represented By Richard L Barrett

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lisa Frances Oswald Represented By Richard L Barrett

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-16079

      Tracy Lynne Crooks

      Chapter 13

      #25.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 98

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tracy Lynne Crooks Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-16189

      Nikea N Jackson

      Chapter 13

      #26.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 70

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nikea N Jackson Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-17922

      Homer Wilson and Evelyn Wilson

      Chapter 13

      #27.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 122

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Homer Wilson Represented By Leonard J Cravens

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Evelyn Wilson Represented By Leonard J Cravens

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-17937

      Joe Roger Montes

      Chapter 13

      #28.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 64

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joe Roger Montes Represented By Stephen R Wade

      W. Derek May

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-18212

      Michael Joseph Slowinski

      Chapter 13

      #29.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 73

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/31/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Joseph Slowinski Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-19338


      Jesus Aguilar and Maria G Aguilar


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 75

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus Aguilar Represented By

      Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria G Aguilar Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-20387

      Marion Schmidt

      Chapter 13

      #31.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 64

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marion Schmidt Represented By Daniel C Sever

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:15-22392

      Donald Leroy Woodruff

      Chapter 13

      #32.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 120

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Donald Leroy Woodruff Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-10385

      Adolfo Gonzalez and Angelica Gonzalez

      Chapter 13

      #33.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 99

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adolfo Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Angelica Gonzalez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-11655

      Lynn Anne Rellins

      Chapter 13

      #34.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 73

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lynn Anne Rellins Represented By Javier H Castillo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-11877

      Allan Martin Borgen

      Chapter 13

      #35.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 79

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Allan Martin Borgen Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-13030

      Richard Hill Lindsay and Laura Lee Lindsay

      Chapter 13

      #36.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 128

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard Hill Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Laura Lee Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-13404

      Alberto Plascencia and Martina Plascencia

      Chapter 13

      #37.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 79

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alberto Plascencia Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Martina Plascencia Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-13872

      Kimberly Ann Bowen

      Chapter 13

      #38.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 94

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kimberly Ann Bowen Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-14169

      Sally Michelle Greene

      Chapter 13

      #39.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 67

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sally Michelle Greene Represented By Sunita N Sood

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-14457

      Milorad Mileusnic and Sonja Mileusnic

      Chapter 13

      #40.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 86

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Milorad Mileusnic Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Sonja Mileusnic Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-14476

      Juan Rene Fullen, Jr.

      Chapter 13

      #41.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 91

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Juan Rene Fullen Jr. Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-15432

      Ramona Hofman

      Chapter 13

      #42.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 64

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ramona Hofman Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-15959

      Feliciano Julian De Vera and Pacita DelaCruz De Vera

      Chapter 13

      #43.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Feliciano Julian De Vera Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Pacita DelaCruz De Vera Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-16719

      Warren Thomas Derry

      Chapter 13

      #44.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 42

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Warren Thomas Derry Represented By Christopher C Barsness

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-16856

      Tony Apodaca and Lydia Apodaca

      Chapter 13

      #45.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 51

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/19/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tony Apodaca Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lydia Apodaca Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-16946

      Elliott Howard Blue, Jr and Yvette Blue

      Chapter 13

      #46.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 90

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/29/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Elliott Howard Blue Jr Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yvette Blue Represented By

      Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-17340


      Mario Maria Delgado and Mireya Cano


      Chapter 13


      #47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/22/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mario Maria Delgado Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mireya Cano Represented By

      Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-17411


      Charlotte N Apacible


      Chapter 13


      #48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Charlotte N Apacible Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-17736

      Willie Elvin Chambers and Marlene Shirley Chambers

      Chapter 13

      #49.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 82

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Willie Elvin Chambers Represented By Heather J Canning Barry E Borowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Marlene Shirley Chambers Represented By Heather J Canning Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-17765

      Mary Jones

      Chapter 13

      #50.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 58

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mary Jones Represented By

      Matthew D Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-17902

      Patricia Daniels

      Chapter 13

      #51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 83

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Patricia Daniels Represented By Benjamin R Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-18430

      Isaias Melo and Rosa Melo

      Chapter 13

      #52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 90

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Isaias Melo Represented By

      Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rosa Melo Represented By

      Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-18529


      Ricardo Carranza and Teresa D. Sotelo


      Chapter 13


      #53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 47

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ricardo Carranza Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Teresa D. Sotelo Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-18621

      John Wesley Wilson, Jr. and Michelle Janet Wilson

      Chapter 13

      #54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 67

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John Wesley Wilson Jr. Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Michelle Janet Wilson Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-18990

      John D Castro, Jr and Jennifer Manda Castro

      Chapter 13

      #55.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 100

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John D Castro Jr Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Manda Castro Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-19396

      Pamela Lynn King

      Chapter 13

      #56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 60

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pamela Lynn King Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-20132

      Maynor Obdulio Cruz and Monica Ivonne Villeda Lopez

      Chapter 13

      #57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Maynor Obdulio Cruz Represented By Sunita N Sood

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Monica Ivonne Villeda Lopez Represented By Sunita N Sood

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-20163

      Sandra M. Hankins

      Chapter 13

      #58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 82

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sandra M. Hankins Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-20860

      Sara R Cuevas

      Chapter 13

      #59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 49

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/29/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sara R Cuevas Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-10414

      Felipe Morales

      Chapter 13

      #60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Felipe Morales Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-10944

      Manuel J. Sotelo

      Chapter 13

      #61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 34

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Manuel J. Sotelo Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-11131

      Bruce Howard Ruggles and Ann Marie Ruggles

      Chapter 13

      #62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 104

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Bruce Howard Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ann Marie Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-11167

      Victor Thomas Lawton

      Chapter 13

      #63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 65

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-11177

      Gary Wayne Turner and Wanda Renay Turner

      Chapter 13

      #64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 49

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gary Wayne Turner Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Wanda Renay Turner Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-11412


      John Edward Maynes, Jr. and Marcella Christina Maynes


      Chapter 13


      #65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John Edward Maynes Jr. Represented By Cynthia A Dunning

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Marcella Christina Maynes Represented By Cynthia A Dunning

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-12758

      Luis A Jovel

      Chapter 13

      #66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 68

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/1/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis A Jovel Represented By

      Manfred Schroer

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13069

      Katrina Mojarro Ruiz

      Chapter 13

      #67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/31/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Katrina Mojarro Ruiz Represented By Nancy Korompis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13089

      Marie Cooper and Albert Cooper

      Chapter 13

      #68.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 62

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marie Cooper Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Albert Cooper Represented By Amanda G Billyard Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13107

      Angel Benavidez

      Chapter 13

      #69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 43

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Angel Benavidez Represented By William P Mullins

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13165

      Richard Ortiz and Dolores Ortiz

      Chapter 13

      #70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 54

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard Ortiz Represented By Elena Steers

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dolores Ortiz Represented By Elena Steers

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13529

      Mark R. Smith

      Chapter 13

      #71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 29

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mark R. Smith Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13719

      Sam Venero

      Chapter 13

      #72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 61

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/22/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sam Venero Represented By

      Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13729

      Paula Rosales

      Chapter 13

      #73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 36

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Paula Rosales Represented By William Radcliffe

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-13820

      Guadalupe Espinoza

      Chapter 13

      #74.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 49

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Guadalupe Espinoza Represented By Edwing F Keller

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-14789

      Sadia Sohail

      Chapter 13

      #75.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 83

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sadia Sohail Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-14790

      Ernesto Ayon Lopez and Dolores Millan Sanchez

      Chapter 13

      #76.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 58

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ernesto Ayon Lopez Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dolores Millan Sanchez Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-14909


      Louis Lee Brown, III and Teri Claudette Brown


      Chapter 13


      #77.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case .


      EH   


      Docket 28

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Louis Lee Brown III Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Teri Claudette Brown Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-15122

      Keith F Keating

      Chapter 13

      #78.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 60

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Keith F Keating Represented By Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-15660

      Guillermina Perez

      Chapter 13

      #79.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 54

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Guillermina Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-15730

      James Whitby and Patricia Lineweaver

      Chapter 13

      #80.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/23/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      James Whitby Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Patricia Lineweaver Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-15772

      Annette Leshon Rudd

      Chapter 13

      #81.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 82

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Annette Leshon Rudd Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-16114

      Allan Omar Ramos

      Chapter 13

      #82.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Allan Omar Ramos Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-16249

      Ruben Quintero Palafox, Jr.

      Chapter 13

      #83.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 39

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ruben Quintero Palafox Jr. Represented By Yoon O Ham

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-16295

      Coe Lamoureux and Julie Lamoureux

      Chapter 13

      #84.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Coe Lamoureux Represented By

      W. Derek May

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Julie Lamoureux Represented By

      W. Derek May

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-16409


      Jesse Norman Dofelmire and Roucelle Frias Dofelmire


      Chapter 13


      #85.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 70

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesse Norman Dofelmire Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Roucelle Frias Dofelmire Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-16609

      Efrain De La Torre and Natalie Elizabeth Lopez

      Chapter 13

      #86.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Efrain De La Torre Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Natalie Elizabeth Lopez Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-17009

      Angel Felix Ruiz and Gladis Del Rosario Ruiz

      Chapter 13

      #87.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 24

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/29/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Angel Felix Ruiz Represented By Edward G Topolski

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Gladis Del Rosario Ruiz Represented By Edward G Topolski

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-17402

      Thomas Lee Abercrombie and Rebecca Anne Abercrombie

      Chapter 13

      #88.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 103

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Thomas Lee Abercrombie Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rebecca Anne Abercrombie Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-17531


      Harvey Everett Mosely and Jean Ann Mosely


      Chapter 13


      #89.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 56

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Harvey Everett Mosely Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jean Ann Mosely Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-17612

      Jose Guadalupe Sandoval

      Chapter 13

      #90.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 45

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/16/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Guadalupe Sandoval Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-17942

      Viorel Bucur

      Chapter 13

      #91.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 93

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Viorel Bucur Represented By

      Michael Jay Berger

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-18030

      Francisco Gabriel Cabrera and Connie Marie Cabrera

      Chapter 13

      #92.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 43

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Francisco Gabriel Cabrera Represented By Michael E Clark

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Connie Marie Cabrera Represented By Michael E Clark

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-18542

      Carolyn Joyce Brooks

      Chapter 13

      #93.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 36

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carolyn Joyce Brooks Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-18669

      Hector Rene Flores, Jr. and Mayra Cecilia Canchola

      Chapter 13

      #94.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 58

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Hector Rene Flores Jr. Represented By Kevin Tang

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mayra Cecilia Canchola Vasquez Represented By

      Kevin Tang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-18720


      Patricia Morales


      Chapter 13


      #95.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 78

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/31/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Patricia Morales Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-19083

      Juan Hernandez

      Chapter 13

      #96.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Juan Hernandez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-19291

      Carolyn Maxine Bodden

      Chapter 13

      #97.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 42

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carolyn Maxine Bodden Represented By Edward G Topolski

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-19787

      Gloria Hayslet

      Chapter 13

      #98.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 73

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gloria Hayslet Represented By Nancy Korompis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-19790

      Angel Rodriguez

      Chapter 13

      #99.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Angel Rodriguez Represented By Nancy Korompis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-20279

      Carolyn Agtang Glenn

      Chapter 13

      #100.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 42

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carolyn Agtang Glenn Represented By

      D Justin Harelik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-20318

      Lynette Kathryn Beaver

      Chapter 13

      #101.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 70

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lynette Kathryn Beaver Represented By Anerio V Altman

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-20652

      Marian Amelia Pagano

      Chapter 13

      #102.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 43

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marian Amelia Pagano Represented By David Lozano

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:17-20659

      Coralia Beltran Rivas

      Chapter 13

      #103.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case .

      EH   

      Docket 48

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Coralia Beltran Rivas Represented By Stephen L Burton

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10079

      Cheryl Linda Fernandez

      Chapter 13

      #104.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 74

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Cheryl Linda Fernandez Represented By Matthew D Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10261

      Nereeka Tamar Haynes

      Chapter 13

      #105.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 56

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nereeka Tamar Haynes Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10329

      Mohammed A Nazir and Boshara Nazir

      Chapter 13

      #106.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mohammed A Nazir Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Boshara Nazir Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10414

      Leonel Villa and Lucila Pineda

      Chapter 13

      #107.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 73

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/14/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Leonel Villa Represented By

      Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lucila Pineda Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10416

      Jose Guadalupe Lopez and Margarita Lopez

      Chapter 13

      #108.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 50

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Guadalupe Lopez Represented By David Lozano

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Margarita Lopez Represented By David Lozano

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10456

      David Allen Rose, Jr. and Karen Sue Rose

      Chapter 13

      #109.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Allen Rose Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Karen Sue Rose Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10496

      Luis Fuentes Moreno

      Chapter 13

      #110.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis Fuentes Moreno Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10498

      Stephen Francis Wallin and Kathleen Lillian Wallin

      Chapter 13

      #111.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 31

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/14/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Stephen Francis Wallin Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kathleen Lillian Wallin Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10636

      Alejandro J. Casillas and Patricia Casillas

      Chapter 13

      #112.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 46

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alejandro J. Casillas Represented By Tina H Trinh

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Patricia Casillas Represented By Tina H Trinh

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10684

      Gary Randall Wootton

      Chapter 13

      #113.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gary Randall Wootton Represented By

      Ethan Kiwhan Chin

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-10978

      Veronica Hernandez

      Chapter 13

      #114.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Veronica Hernandez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-11272

      Rick Williamson and Helen Carol Williamson

      Chapter 13

      #115.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rick Williamson Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Helen Carol Williamson Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-11416

      Darlene J. Wadler

      Chapter 13

      #116.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 43

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Darlene J. Wadler Represented By Michael Jay Berger

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-11653

      Richard Espinoza

      Chapter 13

      #117.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard Espinoza Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-11670

      Eric Reed Johnson and Kristine Lynn Johnson

      Chapter 13

      #118.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Eric Reed Johnson Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kristine Lynn Johnson Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-11890

      Rogelio Ramos and Maria Escobar

      Chapter 13

      #119.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 44

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rogelio Ramos Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Escobar Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-11924

      Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule

      Chapter 13

      #120.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 60

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Don Gurule Represented By

      Christopher Hewitt

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Elaine Gurule Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-11982

      Michael Billings

      Chapter 13

      #121.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 42

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Billings Represented By Kevin Tang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-12272

      Edbin Gonzalez and Maria Chavarria

      Chapter 13

      #122.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Edbin Gonzalez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Chavarria Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-12323

      Kevin E Horton and Manuel F. Dela Rosa

      Chapter 13

      #123.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 46

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kevin E Horton Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Manuel F. Dela Rosa Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-12419

      Donald Bollero and Jennifer Bollero

      Chapter 13

      #124.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 30

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Donald Bollero Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Bollero Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-12549

      Billy Wayne Shipman, Jr. and Andrea Shipman

      Chapter 13

      #125.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 43

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Billy Wayne Shipman Jr. Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Andrea Shipman Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-12622

      Karen Jannette Rimola

      Chapter 13

      #126.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Karen Jannette Rimola Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-12970

      Lorena Valadez

      Chapter 13

      #127.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lorena Valadez Represented By James T Lillard

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-13014

      Elizabeth Dean

      Chapter 13

      #128.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Elizabeth Dean Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-13102

      Luis Felipe Tejeda and Veronica Esther Tejeda

      Chapter 13

      #129.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis Felipe Tejeda Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Veronica Esther Tejeda Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-13111

      Eusebia Rios

      Chapter 13

      #130.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 26

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Eusebia Rios Represented By

      Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-13566

      Marco Tulio Magana and Gloria Louisa Magana

      Chapter 13

      #131.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 49

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marco Tulio Magana Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Gloria Louisa Magana Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-13714

      Jose Martinez and Aurora Martinez

      Chapter 13

      #132.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 44

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Martinez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Aurora Martinez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-13793

      Michael Moreno and Azucena Moreno

      Chapter 13

      #133.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 71

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Azucena Moreno Represented By Andrew Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-14014

      Maggie Ruth Thomas

      Chapter 13

      #134.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Maggie Ruth Thomas Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-14052

      Glenda Faye Price

      Chapter 13

      #135.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 45

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Glenda Faye Price Represented By Nancy Korompis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-14225

      Karen Patricia Boyd

      Chapter 13

      #136.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 46

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/24/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Karen Patricia Boyd Represented By David Lozano

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-14516

      Gary Ray Osborn

      Chapter 13

      #137.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 72

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/17/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gary Ray Osborn Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-14603

      Gabriel Agustin Blanco and Jeneke Nicole Blanco

      Chapter 13

      #138.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 64

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gabriel Agustin Blanco Represented By Norma Duenas

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jeneke Nicole Blanco Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-14686

      Cassandra Henderson

      Chapter 13

      #139.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Cassandra Henderson Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-14761

      Reginald D. Caldwell

      Chapter 13

      #140.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 55

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Reginald D. Caldwell Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-15192

      Everett T Cain

      Chapter 13

      #141.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 49

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Everett T Cain Represented By April E Roberts

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-15239

      Amanda E Curry and Matthew L Curry

      Chapter 13

      #142.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Amanda E Curry Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Matthew L Curry Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-15343

      Jennifer Isabella Solares

      Chapter 13

      #143.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 36

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-15594

      Henry Hurtado, Sr.

      Chapter 13

      #144.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 29

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Henry Hurtado Sr. Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-15900

      Adrio Soedarmo and Yolanda Soedarmo

      Chapter 13

      #145.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adrio Soedarmo Represented By

      Ethan Kiwhan Chin

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yolanda Soedarmo Represented By

      Ethan Kiwhan Chin

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-15970


      Incha K Lockhart


      Chapter 13


      #146.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 29

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Incha K Lockhart Represented By Kevin Tang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16061

      Michelle Denise Kelly

      Chapter 13

      #147.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 29

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michelle Denise Kelly Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16098

      Brianne Lucinda Pituley and Michele Diana Niehe Sharik

      Chapter 13

      #148.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 23

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Brianne Lucinda Pituley Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Michele Diana Niehe Sharik Pituley Represented By

      Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16196


      Barbara Sue Patten


      Chapter 13


      #149.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 31

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Barbara Sue Patten Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16237

      Miguel Santa Maria and Lilia Maldonado

      Chapter 13

      #150.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 52

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Miguel Santa Maria Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lilia Maldonado Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16489

      Rebecca Moore

      Chapter 13

      #151.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rebecca Moore Represented By Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16503

      Irene Elizabeth Arias

      Chapter 13

      #152.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 26

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Irene Elizabeth Arias Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16643

      Jesus N Aguilera

      Chapter 13

      #153.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus N Aguilera Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16680

      Tanisha S. Santee

      Chapter 13

      #154.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 42

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tanisha S. Santee Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16856

      Jason Wade Trust and Shontay Leanne Trust

      Chapter 13

      #155.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 57

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jason Wade Trust Represented By Benjamin R Heston

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Shontay Leanne Trust Represented By Benjamin R Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-16996

      Gabriel Cruz

      Chapter 13

      #156.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 51

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gabriel Cruz Represented By

      Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17204

      Justo Ocegueda

      Chapter 13

      #157.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Justo Ocegueda Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17556

      Daniel Javier Garcia

      Chapter 13

      #158.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 53

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17605

      Joseph N Duguay, II

      Chapter 13

      #159.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 61

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joseph N Duguay II Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17633

      Debra Kristeen Schuler

      Chapter 13

      #160.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 34

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Debra Kristeen Schuler Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17635

      David Bloch and Sarah Bloch

      Chapter 13

      #161.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Bloch Represented By

      Julie J Villalobos

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Sarah Bloch Represented By

      Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17660


      Sharon Lee Martinez


      Chapter 13


      #162.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sharon Lee Martinez Represented By Nancy Korompis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17676

      Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez

      Chapter 13

      #163.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 47

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Patricia Ellen Bond-Gomez Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17681

      Cameron Hudson

      Chapter 13

      #164.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 58

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Cameron Hudson Represented By Stuart R Simone

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17732

      DeBora Debbie Walker

      Chapter 13

      #165.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      DeBora Debbie Walker Represented By

      Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17784

      David John Stoykovich, Jr. and Merlina Lynn Burton

      Chapter 13

      #166.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 42

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David John Stoykovich Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Merlina Lynn Burton Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17878

      Sumanta Chakravarti and Madhumita Chakravarti

      Chapter 13

      #167.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 41

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sumanta Chakravarti Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Madhumita Chakravarti Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-17946

      Erika Lynn Pruitt

      Chapter 13

      #168.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 28

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Erika Lynn Pruitt Represented By

      Raj T Wadhwani

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18402

      Susan Louise Marquez

      Chapter 13

      #169.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/14/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Susan Louise Marquez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18415

      Donna Denise Upton

      Chapter 13

      #170.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 39

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Donna Denise Upton Represented By Seema N Sood

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18484

      Denise Awages Bracken

      Chapter 13

      #171.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 24

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Denise Awages Bracken Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18614

      Frank Thomas Scott

      Chapter 13

      #172.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Frank Thomas Scott Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18724

      Marie Lynne Trejo

      Chapter 13

      #173.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 22

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/29/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marie Lynne Trejo Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18739

      Heather Gibson

      Chapter 13

      #174.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 45

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heather Gibson Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18809

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann

      Chapter 13

      #175.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 95

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18821

      Humberto Camacho, Jr and Sarah Camacho

      Chapter 13

      #176.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 43

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Humberto Camacho Jr Represented By Christian N. Cooper

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Sarah Camacho Represented By Christian N. Cooper

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-18847

      Jennifer Lee Minkalis

      Chapter 13

      #177.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Lee Minkalis Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19027

      Wendy Ramirez

      Chapter 13

      #178.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Wendy Ramirez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19093

      Yolanda Williams

      Chapter 13

      #179.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 45

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Yolanda Williams Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19183

      Carmen Lynn Chilson

      Chapter 13

      #180.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 53

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carmen Lynn Chilson Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19196

      Sheila Rosales Manabat

      Chapter 13

      #181.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 65

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sheila Rosales Manabat Represented By John A Varley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19277

      Kevin Daily

      Chapter 13

      #182.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 24

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kevin Daily Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19340

      Dawn Michele McClure

      Chapter 13

      #183.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Dawn Michele McClure Represented By Kevin Tang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19414

      Paul Edward Young, Jr.

      Chapter 13

      #184.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 54

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Paul Edward Young Jr. Represented By Stephen L Burton

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19628

      Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon

      Chapter 13

      #185.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 53

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19696

      Corinthia A. Williams

      Chapter 13

      #186.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 53

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Corinthia A. Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19729

      John R Saxton

      Chapter 13

      #187.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 59

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John R Saxton Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19737

      Abelardo Magana and Santos Magana

      Chapter 13

      #188.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 26

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Abelardo Magana Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Santos Magana Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-19956

      Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff

      Chapter 13

      #189.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 44

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Herman A. Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Monica Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20070

      Alexander J Perfinowicz and Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz

      Chapter 13

      #190.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 36

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alexander J Perfinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20105

      Darrel Jay Rumsey and Fe Eruela Rumsey

      Chapter 13

      #191.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case .

      EH   

      Docket 29

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Darrel Jay Rumsey Represented By Norma Duenas

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Fe Eruela Rumsey Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20176

      Garry Kenneth Frazier

      Chapter 13

      #192.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 23

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Garry Kenneth Frazier Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20232

      Diana Marie Perrone

      Chapter 13

      #193.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Diana Marie Perrone Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20236

      Carlos Rizo and Desiree Santistevan

      Chapter 13

      #194.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 28

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Carlos Rizo Represented By

      Erika Luna

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Desiree Santistevan Represented By Erika Luna

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20238

      Efrain Padron

      Chapter 13

      #195.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 77

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Efrain Padron Represented By Patricia A Mireles

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20292

      Humberto Vergara

      Chapter 13

      #196.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 34

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Humberto Vergara Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20413

      Jose Ramon Castaneda

      Chapter 13

      #197.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Ramon Castaneda Represented By Andrew Moher

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20644

      Terry E Crossley and Janell Crossley

      Chapter 13

      #198.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 51

      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/23/19

      Party Information

      Terry E Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Janell Crossley Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20845

      Gloria Simmons

      Chapter 13

      #199.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gloria Simmons Represented By Bruce A Wilson

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20847

      Erica Raquel Zavaleta

      Chapter 13

      #200.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 31

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Erica Raquel Zavaleta Represented By William J Smyth Stephen S Smyth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:18-20873

      Alfonso Alvarado, Jr. and Alpha Rubi Alvarado

      Chapter 13

      #201.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 34

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/29/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alfonso Alvarado Jr. Represented By Michael E Clark

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Alpha Rubi Alvarado Represented By Michael E Clark

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10273

      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie

      Chapter 13

      #202.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10276

      Julie Michelle Tsosie

      Chapter 13

      #203.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 43

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Julie Michelle Tsosie Represented By Alon Darvish

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10401

      Gail Nash

      Chapter 13

      #204.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 28

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gail Nash Represented By

      Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10415

      Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism

      Chapter 13

      #205.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10531

      Kimberly A Hardcastle

      Chapter 13

      #206.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/17/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kimberly A Hardcastle Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10684

      Rodrigo Flores Saavedra and Juana Garcia De Flores

      Chapter 13

      #207.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 28

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rodrigo Flores Saavedra Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Juana Garcia De Flores Represented By

      James Geoffrey Beirne

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10822


      Jason Leroy Albaugh and Jamie Lean Albaugh


      Chapter 13


      #208.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jason Leroy Albaugh Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jamie Lean Albaugh Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10934

      Jorge Ramirez and Evelia Ramirez

      Chapter 13

      #209.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 28

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jorge Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Evelia Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-10990

      David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval

      Chapter 13

      #210.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 45

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Sandoval Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

      Bryant C MacDonald

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11041


      Caleb J. Bellot and Mandle Lynn Bellot


      Chapter 13


      #211.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Caleb J. Bellot Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mandle Lynn Bellot Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11103

      Golda Y Williams

      Chapter 13

      #212.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Golda Y Williams Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11129

      Patrick M Reilly and Karen J Reilly

      Chapter 13

      #213.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 34

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/22/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Patrick M Reilly Represented By James T Lillard

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Karen J Reilly Represented By James T Lillard

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11371

      Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall

      Chapter 13

      #214.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 67

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11522

      Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella

      Chapter 13

      #215.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella Represented By Suzette Douglas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11619

      David Ray Bowman and Michelle Jan Bowman

      Chapter 13

      #216.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 30

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Ray Bowman Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Michelle Jan Bowman Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11751

      Leonard Lott and Darlene Lott

      Chapter 13

      #217.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 29

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Leonard Lott Represented By

      Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Darlene Lott Represented By

      Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11766


      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


      Chapter 13


      #218.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11835

      Eusebio H Martinez

      Chapter 13

      #219.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Eusebio H Martinez Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11900

      Asim Muhammad Farooq and Afifa Farooq

      Chapter 13

      #220.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Asim Muhammad Farooq Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Afifa Farooq Represented By

      Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11923


      Kristi Jill Kasel


      Chapter 13


      #221.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 28

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kristi Jill Kasel Represented By Aaron Lloyd

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-11963

      Pamela M Bradford

      Chapter 13

      #222.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/15/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pamela M Bradford Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12113

      Rudy Torres Garcia and Irma Valencia Garcia

      Chapter 13

      #223.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/8/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rudy Torres Garcia Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Irma Valencia Garcia Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12169


      Jason G. Brodowski and Lithia A. Brodowski


      Chapter 13


      #224.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 35

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jason G. Brodowski Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lithia A. Brodowski Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12323

      Isela Irma Vega

      Chapter 13

      #225.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Isela Irma Vega Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12375

      Terry L. Hogle

      Chapter 13

      #226.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 26

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Terry L. Hogle Represented By Kevin Tang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12398

      Jerry Melendrez and Laura Therese Melendrez

      Chapter 13

      #227.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jerry Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Laura Therese Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12483

      Hector Jesus Sevilla

      Chapter 13

      #228.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 24

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Hector Jesus Sevilla Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12626

      Diana June Tucker

      Chapter 13

      #229.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 25

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Diana June Tucker Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:19-12702

      Cesar Armando Carrillo

      Chapter 13

      #230.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 30

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      8/7/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Cesar Armando Carrillo Represented By Matthew D Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:16-12400

      Ernestine Steppes

      Chapter 13

      #231.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 57

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/12/19

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ernestine Steppes Represented By Mathew Alden

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-16372

      Soladean Lee Dade, Jr

      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 11210 4th St. #2311, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730


      MOVANT: EQR-FANWELL 2007 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


      EH   


      Docket 7

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING


      August 20, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s motion for relief from the stay under 11

      U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT Movant’s request at ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to obtain possession of the property. GRANT Movant’s request for waiver of Rule 4001 stay.

      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Soladean Lee Dade Jr Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      EQR-FANWELL 2007 LIMITED Represented By

      Scott Andrews

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Soladean Lee Dade, Jr


      Chapter 7

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-16175


      Natifa Snowden


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 233 W. Nicolet St. #5 Banning, CA 92220


      MOVANT: EUPHORIA CAPITAL LLC


      EH   


      Docket 7

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/5/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Natifa Snowden Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      EUPHORIA CAPITAL LLC Represented By Scott Andrews

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-15959


      Lasunda McCrary


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 19925 Krameria Ave., Riverside, CA 92508


      MOVANT: JINGCHENG LEO


      EH   


      Docket 12

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING


      August 20, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s motion for relief from the stay under 11

      U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT Movant’s request at ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to obtain possession of the property. GRANT Movant’s request for waiver of Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for establishment of a deadline for assumption or rejection of the lease as MOOT.

      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lasunda McCrary Represented By Edward T Weber

      Movant(s):

      Jingcheng Leo Represented By

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Lasunda McCrary


      Paul E Gold


      Chapter 7

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-15958


      Gwendolyn Onuekwusi


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 8869 Cherbourgh Dr., Riverside, CA 92504


      MOVANT: LOUDEN, LLC


      EH   


      Docket 9

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/13/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gwendolyn Onuekwusi Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Louden, LLC. Represented By

      Scott Andrews

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-15620


      Linda Foster


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Insurance Proceeds RE: 2012 MAZDA MAZDA 6 VIN 1YVHZ8DH5C5M34326


      MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES


      EH       


      Docket 15

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING:


      August 20, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s motion for relief from the stay to enforce its remedies to proceed to final judgment in the nonbankruptcy foreign as to the insurance proceeds for the damages to Debtor’s Mazda 6. The stay is to remain in effect with respect to the enforcement of any judgment against the Debtor or property of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Any excess recovery above the claim amount received from the insurance to be transferred to the Chapter 13 Trustee. GRANT relief from the Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request that the order be binding and effective despite any conversion of the bankruptcy case to a case under any other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code.

      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Linda Foster Represented By

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Movant(s):


      Linda Foster


      Kevin Tang


      Chapter 13

      AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-15426


      Mona Elizabeth Delgado


      Chapter 7


      #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota, Corolla VIN # 2T1BURHE5HC825261


      MOVANT: PRESTIGE FINANCIAL SERVICES


      EH   


      Docket 9

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mona Elizabeth Delgado Represented By Miguel A Valente

      Movant(s):

      Prestige Financial Services, Inc. Represented By Anna Landa

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Mona Elizabeth Delgado


      Chapter 7

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14886


      Amanda Marie Tucker


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 HYUNDAI ELANTRA; VIN: KMHDH6AE4DU006630


      MOVANT: FIRST INVESTORS FINANCIAL SERVICES


      EH   


      Docket 16

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to DENY, without prejudice, Creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay, as Creditor reused a signature page for the proof of service from a prior motion for relief from the stay, as the signature page for the proof of service for this motion. See proofs of service dated 6/11, 7/11, 7/12.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Amanda Marie Tucker Represented By Michael Doan

      Movant(s):

      First Investors Financial Services Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Amanda Marie Tucker


      Chapter 7

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14876


      Mansoureh Mansi Azhdarian


      Chapter 7


      #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 NISSAN NV200, VIN #: 3N6CM0KN2EK700870


      MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 16

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mansoureh Mansi Azhdarian Represented By Rachelle Shakoori

      Movant(s):

      NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By

      Michael D Vanlochem

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Mansoureh Mansi Azhdarian


      Chapter 7

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14458


      Alfonso Velasco, Jr


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 281 N. Aspen Avenue, Rialto, CA 92376


      MOVANT: BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC


      EH   


      Docket 15

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Alfonso Velasco Jr Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Broker Solutions, Inc. D/B/A New Represented By

      Nathan F Smith

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13721


      Patrocinio Cea Mejia and Maria E Ugalde


      Chapter 7


      #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 FORD F150 VIN 1FTEW1CG5GKF70819


      MOVANT: CAB WEST, LLC


      EH       


      Docket 28

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Patrocinio Cea Mejia Represented By

      George C Panagiotou

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria E Ugalde Represented By

      George C Panagiotou

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Patrocinio Cea Mejia and Maria E Ugalde


      Chapter 7

      Cab West LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13331


      Amie L Pannazzo


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 KIA FORTE


      MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE LLC


      EH       


      Docket 45

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)

      (1) and (2). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Amie L Pannazzo Represented By Qais Zafari

      Movant(s):

      TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Amie L Pannazzo


      Chapter 7

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13314


      Tamra Gillian Rehak


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Sun Tracker Party Barge Boat/2014 Trailstar Carrier


      MOVANT: BALBOA THRIFT & LOAN


      EH   


      Docket 36

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of adequate protection negotiations.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tamra Gillian Rehak Represented By Norma Duenas

      Movant(s):

      Balboa Thrift & Loan Represented By Keith E Herron

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13292


      Miguel Angel Arredondo


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 8 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON- BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Shirleen P. Damaske vs. Miguel Angel Arredondo, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, Case Number CIVDS 1906769


      MOVANT: SHIRLEEN P. DAMASKE


      EH   


      Docket 9

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING:

      8/20/2019

      Service: Improper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for Movant to properly serve Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Miguel Angel Arredondo Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Shirleen P Damaske Represented By

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Miguel Angel Arredondo


      Michael P O'Sullivan


      Chapter 7

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13174


      Daniel Benjamin Verwers


      Chapter 7


      #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: Plasma table and equipment


      MOVANT: CIT BANK, N.A.


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      Movant to address whether relief from stay is appropriate where parties have subsequently entered into a reaffirmation agreement filed on July 25, 2019.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Movant(s):

      CIT Bank, N.A. Represented By

      Raffi Khatchadourian

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-10024


      James J. Ysais


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5705 Hudson Street, Riverside, CA 92509


      MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


      EH   


      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/2/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      James J. Ysais Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Movant(s):

      Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

      Nichole Glowin Gilbert R Yabes

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20292


      Humberto Vergara


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 580 W. Grove St, Rialto, CA 92376 .


      MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      EH   


      Docket 36


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Humberto Vergara Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Movant(s):

      U.S. BANK, NA AS LEGAL TITLE Represented By

      Diane Weifenbach

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-20002


      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23631 Rhea Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92557


      MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC DBA MR. COOPER AS SERVICING AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


      EH   


      Docket 42

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

      Movant(s):

      Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-14053


      Wallace Stanton Miles


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 51700 Avenida Martinez, La Quinta, CA 92253


      MOVANT: MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP


      From: 7/9/19 EH   

      Docket 47

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 7/25/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Wallace Stanton Miles Represented By

      Stuart G Steingraber

      Movant(s):

      MTGLQ Investors, L.P. Represented By Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-12170


      Pamela Ann Harris


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1939 Prince Albert Drive, Riverside, CA 92507


      MOVANT: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.


      From: 7/16/19 EH   

      Docket 84

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      7/16/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the negotiations for an adequate protection order.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pamela Ann Harris Represented By Halli B Heston

      Movant(s):

      Wilmington Trust, NA, successor Represented By

      Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Pamela Ann Harris


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-11403


      Dony M Portillo and Raquel A Portillo


      Chapter 13


      #20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 FORD FUSION VIN 3FA6P0SU5GR385478


      MOVANT: CAB WEST, LLC


      EH       


      Docket 68

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Dony M Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Raquel A Portillo Represented By Paul Y Lee Andrea Liddick

      Movant(s):

      Cab West LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-10909


      Candyce Flemister


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15756 Granada Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92551


      MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


      EH       


      Docket 38

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to enter into an agreement with the Debtor. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request that, upon entry of the order, that Debtor be considered a borrower, as defined under Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C), for the purposes of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Candyce Flemister


      Chapter 13

      Candyce Flemister Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Movant(s):

      Nationstar Mortgage LLC, d/b/a Mr. Represented By

      Gilbert R Yabes Dane W Exnowski Kelsey X Luu

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-20240


      Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15573 Kearny Drive, Adelanto, CA 92301


      MOVANT: FMJM RWL IV TRUST 2017-1


      EH   


      Docket 42

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the loan modification. Otherwise, it appears that relief from the stay is warranted.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Natona Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Tameiko Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

      Movant(s):

      FMJM RWL IV Trust 2017-1 Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto

      10:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


      Caren J Castle


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-20121


      Agustin Napolion Joya and Dora Maria Joya


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA FIT, JHMG K5H8 6HS0 10191


      MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


      EH   


      Docket 59

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING


      August 20, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s motion for relief from the stay under 11

      U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT request at ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to obtain possession of the property. GRANT request for waiver of Rule 4001 stay. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.

      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Agustin Napolion Joya Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dora Maria Joya Represented By Daniel King

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Agustin Napolion Joya and Dora Maria Joya


      Chapter 13

      HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-17722


      Joseph Daniel Coleman and Rosalinda Maria Coleman


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 KIA Forte EX Sedan 4D


      MOVANT: CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE


      From: 7/9/19 EH       

      Docket 38


      Tentative Ruling:

      7/9/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joseph Daniel Coleman Represented By Nathan Fransen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rosalinda Maria Coleman Represented By Nathan Fransen

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Joseph Daniel Coleman and Rosalinda Maria Coleman


      Chapter 13

      Capital One Auto Finance, a division Represented By

      Cheryl A Skigin

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-16409


      Jesse Norman Dofelmire and Roucelle Frias Dofelmire


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 37134 Sierra Grove Dr Murrieta, CA 92563


      MOVANT: THE MONEY SOURCE INC


      EH   


      Docket 72

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/19/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesse Norman Dofelmire Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Roucelle Frias Dofelmire Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Movant(s):

      The Money Source Inc. Represented By

      Erin M McCartney

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-16227


      Shawn L. Johnson


      Chapter 13


      #26.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6583 Kunzite Court, Mira Loma, CA 91752


      MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      From: 5/21/19, 6/4/19, 7/9/19 EH   

      Docket 49

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/13/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      Tentative Ruling:


      5/21/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to optionally provide and enter into an agreement with Debtor. GRANT request for termination of the 11 U.S.C. § 1301(a) co-debtor stay.

      GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request that Debtor be declared a borrower as defined in Cal Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C). DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Shawn L. Johnson


      Chapter 13

      Shawn L. Johnson Represented By Mark S Martinez

      Movant(s):

      U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

      Nancy L Lee Darren J Devlin

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-15647


      Omar Enrique Lopez


      Chapter 13


      #27.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23502 Wooden Horse Trail, Murrieta, CA 92562-4721


      MOVANT: EAGLE HOME MORTGAGE LLC


      EH       


      Docket 53

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of adequate protection negotiations. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Omar Enrique Lopez Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Eagle Home Mortgage,LLC Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Omar Enrique Lopez


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:17-11759


      Monica Rees


      Chapter 13


      #28.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 FORD FUSION VIN 3FA6P0H7XDR215811


      MOVANT: FIRST INVESTORS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC


      EH   


      Docket 45

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/7/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Monica Rees Represented By

      Julie J Villalobos

      Movant(s):

      First Investors Financial Services, Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:16-20659


      Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


      Chapter 13


      #29.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2767 Libra Dr., Riverside, California 92503-6018


      MOVANT: NEWREZ LLC


      EH   


      Docket 63

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the cure of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Romy Abalunan Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Bernadine Nieves Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

      Movant(s):

      NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Represented By

      Erin M McCartney

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:16-20459


      Winnie Marie Quanstrom


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3769 Castle Oak Drive, Riverside, CA 92505


      MOVANT: SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC


      From: 7/30/19 EH       

      Docket 55


      Tentative Ruling:

      7/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      While the motion is opposed, the merits of the opposition are not clear, and the declaration in support is insufficient as it is from Debtor’s counsel. Therefore, he Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Winnie Marie Quanstrom Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Specialized Loan Servicing LLC Represented By

      Mukta Suri Nancy L Lee

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Winnie Marie Quanstrom


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:16-19018


      Ingeborg Margarete Preisendanz


      Chapter 13


      #31.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23305 Spring Meadow Drive, Murrieta, California 92562


      MOVANT: REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.


      EH   


      Docket 62


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Ingeborg Margarete Preisendanz Represented By

      Danny K Agai

      Movant(s):

      Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

      Sean C Ferry

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:16-15668


      Roger C Jefferson


      Chapter 13


      #32.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4372 Edenwild Lane, Corona, CA 92883


      MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      From: 7/9/19 EH   

      Docket 122

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/15/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      7/9/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      The Court notes that there is no evidence presented with either of Debtor's oppositions. The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Roger C Jefferson Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Represented By Gilbert R Yabes

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Roger C Jefferson


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-16418


      Janet Adams


      Chapter 7


      #32.10 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 23643 Ashwood Ave Moreno Valley CA 92557


      MOVANT: STATEWIDE PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. CHARLES BROWN, KATHERINE BROWN


      CASE DISMISSED 8/13/19


      EH   


      Docket 11

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING


      August 20, 2019 Service: Proper Opposition: None

      The Court is inclined to DENY Movant’s request for relief from the stay under 11

      U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) as MOOT. DENY Movant’s request at ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to obtain possession of the property as MOOT. GRANT request that the stay is annulled retroactive to the bankruptcy petition date, and that any post-petition acts taken by Movant to enforce its remedies regarding the Property shall not constitute a violation of the stay. GRANT Movant’s request for waiver of Rule 4001 stay.

      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Janet Adams Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Janet Adams


      Chapter 7

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:18-20003


      LC Stahl LLC


      Chapter 11


      #33.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report

      (HOLDING DATE)


      From: 1/8/19, 2/26/19, 3/5/19, 4/10/19, 5/7/19, 6/25/19 EH       

      Docket 8

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/6/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      LC Stahl LLC Represented By

      Stuart J Wald

      2:00 PM

      6:18-18339


      Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


      Chapter 11


      #34.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 37 by Claimant Franchise Tax Board


      From: 5/7/19, 6/25/19, 7/30/19 EH   

      Docket 248

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/16/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

      Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

      Movant(s):

      Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

      Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

      2:00 PM

      6:18-12807


      G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #35.00 Application for Compensation for Michael Jones, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 10/23/2018 to 3/26/2019, Fee: $35050, Expenses: $251.80


      Also #36 EH   

      Docket 183


      Tentative Ruling:

      Application: $35,050.00 in fees and $251.80 in expenses, as well as $54,450.00 in fees previously approved by the Court on November 27, 2018, but for which no order was lodged by Applicant, for a combined request of $89,500 in fees and $251.80, totaling $89,751.80 ($79,151.80 remaining to be paid).


      Opposition: No.


      Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


      Background


      On March 27, 2018, G Hurtado Construction, Inc. ("Debtor") filed its petition for chapter 11 relief. The bankruptcy was precipitated by a wage and hour lawsuit brought by two and possibly more former employees. On April 25, 2018, the Court approved the employment application of M. Jones & Associates, P.C. ("Applicant") to serve as counsel to Debtor. Debtor’s initial disclosure statement required amendment following the Court’s allowance of late-filed claims. The First Amended DS and Plan were filed in October 2018.


      On October 22, 2018, the Applicant filed the first interim fee application seeking allowance of $54,450 in fees and $0 in expenses for the period of March 27, 2018, through and including October 22, 2018. Applicant also stated that it was in possession of $10,600 of funds from the Debtor in their trust account. No

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      G Hurtado Construction, Inc.

      opposition was filed. On November 27, 2018, the Court granted the interim fee application in the amount of $43,560, based on an 80% allowance and a 20% holdback for final approval, on the condition that Applicant file a client declaration or explanation in regard to their application, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(1)(J). However, Applicant never lodged an order as to their fee application, despite the Court granting their request.


      Chapter 11


      On December 3, 2018, Debtor filed an adversarial complaint objecting to the claim of Juan Catano and Faustino Magana, and, in the alternative, requesting indemnification from Donahoo & Associates, P.C. On June 18, 2019, parties in the adversarial proceeding filed a stipulation requesting that the Court close the adversarial proceeding until the arbitration proceeding between the parties was resolved. On June 24, 2019, the Court entered an order continuing the status conference on the adversarial proceeding to January 15, 2020, with leave to parties to stipulate to advancing the conference if needed.


      Debtor filed their second amended plan and disclosure statement on December 27, 2018. They filed a third amended plan and disclosure statement on March 7, 2019. The third amended plan was confirmed via order entered on April 5, 2019. The third amended plan provides a 102% dividend to the general unsecured creditors. The third amended plan was confirmed via order entered by the Court on April 5, 2019.


      On July 22, 2019, Applicant filed their second, and final, application for compensation, seeking allowance of both $35,050.00 in fees and $251.80 in expenses for services performed from the period of October 23, 2018 through the confirmation of the plan at the hearing on March 26, 2019, as well as allowance of the $54,450 in fees and $0 in expenses which was originally approved by the Court on November 27, 2018, but for which no order was lodged. No opposition was filed against Applicant’s second fee application. However, Applicant once again failed to file a client declaration or explanation in regard to their explanation, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(1)(J).


      Analysis

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), the court may award reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services. The court has an independent duty to review the fee application in the absence of objections. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(2). The court "will not indulge in extensive labor and guesswork to justify a fee for an attorney who has not done so himself." In re Taylor, 66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986).


      11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. These factors include time spent, rates charged, necessity of the service, reasonableness of the service, expertise of attorney, and comparable market rates.


      Upon review of Applicant’s final fee application, the billing records, and the work performed, the Court is inclined to find that Applicant’s requested compensation is generally reasonable. In particular, the Court takes note of the successful resolution of Applicant’s Chapter 11 case, with a confirmed 100% plan of reorganization and the successful litigation of several contested claims. While there is a remaining adversarial proceeding open in the case, the Court notes that parties have requested that it close that proceeding until arbitration has concluded. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Applicant’s combined request of $89,500 in fees.


      Upon review of Counsel’s request for $251.80 in expenses, the Court is inclined to find that Counsel has properly accounted for their expenses, and that the expenses themselves are reasonable. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Counsel’s request for $251.80 in expenses. As the previous interim application requested $0 in expenses, the Court does not need to approve a combined request here regarding expenses.


      However, Applicant has once again failed to comply with Local Rule 2016-1(a)(1) (J). It requires a separately filed declaration from the client, or in the alternative, if the client refuses to provide such declaration, Applicant’s own declaration describing steps taken to obtain the client’s declaration. Previously, Debtor filed such a declaration after the hearing on November 27, 2018. As such, the Court will repeat its prior decision from the first interim application, and condition the order authorizing payment of the approved combined fees and expenses on the filing of a declaration or explanation from the Debtor, as required by LBR

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      G Hurtado Construction, Inc.

      2016-1(a)(1)(J).


      Tentative Ruling:


      Chapter 11


      August 20, 2019


      Service: Proper Opposition: No.


      The Court is inclined to GRANT Applicant’s application for compensation for fees and expenses in the combined amount of $89,500 in fees and $251.80 in expenses, for a total amount of $89,751.80 ($79,151.80 remaining to be paid). However, the entering of Applicant’s lodged order for compensation will be conditioned on the filing of a declaration, or explanation as to why no declaration is forthcoming, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(1)(J), as well as the lodgment of an order approving the first interim fee application.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

      Movant(s):

      G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

      2:00 PM

      6:18-12807


      G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #36.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 5/8/18, 8/21/18, 9/11/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/6/18, 12/18/18, 3/5/19, 3/26/19


      Also #35 EH   

      Docket 18


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #37.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case From: 7/16/19

      Also #38 - #39


      EH       


      Docket 162


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      Movant(s):

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #38.00 CONT United States Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case or to Convert Case From: 5/28/19, 7/16/19

      Also #37 - #39


      EH   


      Docket 138


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By Everett L Green

      Abram Feuerstein esq

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #39.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 8/21/18, 10/16/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18, 1/15/19, 2/5/19, 4/16/19, 5/28/19, 7/16/19


      Also #37 - #38


      EH    


      Docket 7


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      2:00 PM

      6:18-15841


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


      Chapter 11


      #40.00 Application for Compensation for Kirsten A Worley, Special Counsel, Period: 7/12/2018 to 7/2/2019, Fee: $98252.50, Expenses: $387.10. (Worley, Kirsten)


      Also #41 - #43


      EH   


      Docket 359


      Tentative Ruling:

      Application: $126,562.50 in fees and $493.00 in expenses for a total of

      $127,055.50 (minus interim payments of $28,310.00 in fees and $105.90 in expenses for a current request of $98,639.60).


      Opposition: Yes (but resolved via stipulation).


      Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


      Background


      Debtor L.A. Steel Services, Inc. ("Debtor") filed their voluntary Chapter 11 petition on July 12, 2018. Debtor’s second amended Chapter 11 plan was confirmed on July 3, 2019, and Debtor received their order of discharge on July 12, 2019. The plan provides for a 100% treatment of the general unsecured creditors.


      Debtor filed an application for an order authorizing the employment of special counsel for Debtor Worley Law, P.C. ("Worley") on July 25, 2018. The order was entered on August 14, 2018. Worley was employed to:

      1. advise and assist the Debtor with respect to factual and legal issues that may arise in the case related to construction and contractors;


      2. advise and assist the Debtor with communication with general

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


        Chapter 11

        contractors and owners regarding compliance with contract terms and applicable law, and to assist in the prosecution/negotiation of claims of the Debtor for additional compensation or change orders as applicable;


      3. Advise and assist the Debtor related to claims which may be asserted by suppliers, vendors, and subcontractors, including claims of PSG and claims that Debtor may have against PSG; and


      4. to perform any and all legal services incident and necessary herein as the Debtor may have required of the firm as special counsel.


      Among the services Worley provided was consultation with Debtor on Debtor’s claim objection to PSG’s claim against Debtor, which included Worley assisting with the drafting regarding Debtor’s claim objection.


      Worley filed their final application for payment of fees and expenses on July 30, 2019. Worley requested $126,562.50 in fees and $493.00 in expenses, for a total of $127,055.50. Worley received a $25,000 retainer from Debtor. As part of Worley’s employment order, Worley was allowed to receive 80% of their requested fees and 100% of their expenses through interim payments via monthly professional fee statements. Worley received $28,310 in fees and $105.90 in expenses through interim payments (including the remaining amounts from the retainer) and received no objections to any of the monthly fee statements. This leaves the current total request remaining to be paid at $98,639.60.


      The U.S. Trustee ("U.S.T.") filed an opposition to Worley’s fee application on August 5, 2019. U.S.T. raised objections as to $9,187.50 in requested fees from vaguely described entries, as well as $5,655 in entries where both Worley and Debtor’s counseled participated in the same meetings, raising concerns of duplicative work.


      Debtor filed a statement of support of Worley’s fee application on August 9, 2019.


      Worley filed a response to U.S.T. on August 12, 2019 giving their explanation for the vague entries and explaining their role at the meetings where they participated alongside Debtor’s counsel.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


      Chapter 11


      Worley and U.S.T. entered into a stipulation filed on August 12, 2019. The parties agreed to a permanent reduction in the fees requested of $2,840.63, for a new total of $124,214.87 and a new current amount to be paid of $95,798.97.


      Analysis


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), the court may award reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services. The court has an independent duty to review the fee application in the absence of objections. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(2). The court "will not indulge in extensive labor and guesswork to justify a fee for an attorney who has not done so himself." In re Taylor, 66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986).


      11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. These factors include time spent, rates charged, necessity of the service, reasonableness of the service, expertise of attorney, and comparable market rates.


      Upon review of Worley’s final fee application, the work performed by Worley during this matter, the U.S.T.’s opposition, and Worley’s reply, the Court is inclined to find that the stipulation entered into by Worley and U.S.T. reflect a reasonable final compensation for the work performed by Worley. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Worley’s reduced request for fees, per the stipulation, in the amount of $123,721.87.


      Upon review of Worley’s request for $493 in expenses, the Court is inclined to find that Worley has properly accounted for their expenses, and that the expenses themselves are reasonable. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Worley’s request for $493 in expenses.


      Tentative Ruling:


      Service: Proper

      Opposition: Yes (but resolved via stipulation).


      The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s application for compensation for fees

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

      and expenses in the reduced amount of $124,214.87 in in fees and $493.00 in expenses, for a total amount of $124,214.87, with a current amount remaining to be paid of $95,798.97.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information


      Chapter 11

      Debtor(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      Movant(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      2:00 PM

      6:18-15841


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


      Chapter 11


      #41.00 Application for Compensation [First and Final Application for Approval of Pre- Confirmation Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses by Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP, Attorneys for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession; Declaration of James C. Bastian, Jr. in Support Thereof for James C Bastian Jr, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 7/12/2018 to 7/2/2019, Fee: $375,076.80, Expenses:

      $24,001.84. (Bastian, James) Also #40 - #43

      EH   


      Docket 355


      Tentative Ruling:

      Application: $375,076.80 in fees and $24,001.84 in expenses for a total of

      $399,078.64 (minus interim payments of $193,802.46 for a current request of

      $205,276.18).


      Opposition: No.


      Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


      Background


      Debtor L.A. Steel Services, Inc. ("Debtor") filed their voluntary Chapter 11 petition on July 12, 2018. Debtor’s second amended Chapter 11 plan was confirmed on July 3, 2019, and Debtor received their order of discharge on July 12, 2019. The plan as confirmed provides a 100% treatment of the general unsecured creditors.


      Debtor filed an application for an order authorizing the employment of Shulman, Hodges and Bastian as counsel for Debtor ("Counsel") on July 23, 2018. The order was entered on August 10, 2018.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


      Chapter 11


      Counsel filed their first and final application for payment of fees and expenses on July 26, 2019. Counsel requested $375,076.80 in fees and $24,001.84 in expenses, for a total of $399,078.64. Counsel applied a 10% discount to their fee request.

      Counsel received a $200,000 retainer from Debtor, of which $95,362.09 was consumed prior to the petition date, leaving $104,637.91 remaining. As part of Counsel’s employment order, Counsel was allowed to receive 80% of their requested fees and 100% of their expenses through interim payments via monthly professional fee statements. Counsel received $193,802.46 through interim payments (including the remaining amounts from the retainer) and received no objections to any of the monthly fee statements. This leaves the current total request remaining to be paid at $205,276.


      There has been no objection to Counsel’s first and final fee application.


      Analysis


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), the court may award reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services. The court has an independent duty to review the fee application in the absence of objections. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(2). The court "will not indulge in extensive labor and guesswork to justify a fee for an attorney who has not done so himself." In re Taylor, 66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986).


      11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. These factors include time spent, rates charged, necessity of the service, reasonableness of the service, expertise of attorney, and comparable market rates.


      Upon review of Counsel’s final fee application, the billing records, and the work performed, the Court is inclined to find that Counsel’s requested compensation is generally reasonable. In particular, the Court takes note of Counsel’s successful shepherding of Debtor’s case, resolution of several major disputes with suppliers, and development of a confirmed plan that provides a 100% dividend to the general unsecured creditors. The Court also takes into account Counsel’s role in maintaining Debtor’s business relationships with major suppliers and clients.

      Finally, the Court also notes the 10% discount that Counsel applied to their fees in

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

      their monthly professional fee requests. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Counsel’s request for $375,076.80 in fees.


      Chapter 11


      Upon review of Counsel’s request for $24,001.84 in expenses, the Court is inclined to find that Counsel has more than properly accounted for their expenses, and that the expenses themselves are reasonable. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Counsel’s request for $24,001.84 in expenses.


      Tentative Ruling:

      August 20, 2019


      Service: Proper Opposition: No.


      The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s application for compensation for fees and expenses in the amount of $375,076.80 in fees and $24,001.84 in expenses, for a total amount of $399,078.64, with a current amount remaining to be paid of

      $205,276.187.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.



      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      Movant(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      2:00 PM

      6:18-15841


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


      Chapter 11


      #42.00 Motion For Final Decree and Order Closing Case Also #40 - #43

      EH   


      Docket 353

      Tentative Ruling:


      BACKGROUND

      LA Steel Services, Inc. ("Debtor") filed their voluntary Chapter 11 petition on July 12, 2018. Their Chapter 11 plan was confirmed by the Court on July 3, 2019. Debtor filed this motion for entry of final decree and closing of case on July 26, 2019. There are two remaining motions to be resolved in the case, both concerning the approval of the compensation for Debtor’s counsels, Shulman, Hodges and Bastian and Worley Law,

      P.C. Both of those motions are to be heard on the same date as this motion, August 20, 2019, and the Court has noted its inclination to grant both.

      DISCUSSION


      The failure of any party to oppose Debtor’s motion will be treated as consent under LBR 9013-1(f)(3).


      The Court should enter a final decree closing a case when a Chapter 11 estate has been fully administered. 11 U.S.C. § 350. Full administration of a case requires there are no unresolved matters concerning the case that remain to be decided, such as motions, contested matters, or adversary proceedings. Greenfield Drive Storage Park

      v. California Para-Professional Servs. (In re Greenfield Storage Park), 207 B.R. 913, 918 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997). The question then turns to whether the case has been substantially consummated, as defined under 11 U.S.C. § 1101(2). In re Wade, 991 F.2d 402, 406 fn. 2 (7th Cir. 1993). § 1101(2) defines "substantial consummation" as when:


      1. All, or substantially all of the property to be transferred under the plan has been transferred;

      2. The debtor, or the successor to the debtor, has assumed management of the

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

        debtor’s business under the plan and/or all or substantially all of the property dealt with by the plan; and


        Chapter 11


      3. The distribution under the plan has commenced.

      Here, while there are two remaining matters to be resolved, both will be resolved on the same date as this motion, and neither are in controversy at this time. The Court thus finds that the matter has been fully administered. In addition, the Court finds that the case has been substantially consummated. There was no property that needed to be distributed under the plan, Debtor has assumed the management of their business and control of their assets, and distributions have begun under the plan and are being carried out under the schedule.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      8/20/2019


      SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: NONE

      The Court is inclined to GRANT Debtor’s motion, GRANT request that a Final

      Decree be entered, and GRANT request that this Chapter 11 case be closed.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Movant(s):


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley


      Chapter 11

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      2:00 PM

      6:18-15841


      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California corporation


      Chapter 11


      #43.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 12/19/18, 12/20/18, 1/15/19, 2/26/19, 3/19/19,

      6/4/19; 7/1/19


      Also #40 - #42


      EH   


      Docket 5


      Tentative Ruling:

      12/19/2018


      All parties have authorization to appear telephonically for the 12/19/2018 Status Conference.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      LA Steel Services, Inc., a California Represented By

      James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Kirsten A Worley

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13133


      WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE INC.


      Chapter 11


      #44.00 (Jointly Administered with LEAD CASE - 19-13127 MH)

      CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


      From: 4/29/19, 6/11/19 EH   

      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      WILDOMAR ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13132


      RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE INC.


      Chapter 11


      #45.00 (Jointly Administered with LEAD CASE - 19-13127 MH)

      CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


      From: 4/29/19, 6/11/19 EH   

      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      RIVERSIDE ACE HARDWARE Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13130


      9 FINGERS INC


      Chapter 11


      #46.00 (Jointly Administered with LEAD CASE - 19-13127 MH)

      CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


      From: 4/29/19, 6/11/19 EH   

      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      9 FINGERS INC Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      9 FINGERS INC Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #47.00 (Jointly Administered - LEAD CASE - 19-13127 MH)

      CONT Emergency Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection


      From: 4/29/19, 6/11/19 EH   

      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10155


      Jose De Jesus Hernandez


      Chapter 11


      #48.00 CONT Motion for approval of the adequecy of the chapter 11 disclosure statement


      From: 1/29/19, 3/5/19, 6/11/19 Also #49

      EH   


      Docket 111


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan

      Movant(s):

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10155


      Jose De Jesus Hernandez


      Chapter 11


      #49.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 1/29/19, 3/5/19, 6/11/19


      Also #48 EH   

      Docket 96


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12732


      Armando Gutierrez


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Capital One Auto Finance, a division of Capital One. N.A. re 2016 Honda Civic Sedan 4D LX 14


      EH       


      Docket 14


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Armando Gutierrez Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-12890


      Travis Anthony Lopez


      Chapter 7


      #2.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and VW Credit Inc re: 2012 Audi A4


      EH       


      Docket 14


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Travis Anthony Lopez Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13012


      Josefa Brito Ocampo


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation re 2012 Honda Civic


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Josefa Brito Ocampo Represented By Peter Recchia

      Trustee(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13498


      Douglas Alfredo Figueroa-Ramirez and Dulce Karina


      Chapter 7


      #4.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Ally Bank re 2014 Acura EH   

      Docket 14


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Alfredo Figueroa-Ramirez Represented By

      Michael H Colmenares

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dulce Karina Cabrera Represented By

      Michael H Colmenares

      Trustee(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-13736


      Cristian Eduardo Jimenez Guzman and Vanessa Mederos


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation re: 2016 Toyota Tacoma


      EH       


      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Cristian Eduardo Jimenez Guzman Represented By

      Marlin Branstetter

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Vanessa Mederos Represented By Marlin Branstetter

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14214


      David Ray Clark and Ruth Ann Clark


      Chapter 7


      #6.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Ally Bank Lease Trust re 2018 Dodge Charger


      EH   


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      David Ray Clark Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ruth Ann Clark Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14689


      Victoria Dawkins


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Navy Federal Credit Union re: 2015 Chrysler 200


      EH       


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Victoria Dawkins Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14921


      DeAndra Gayle Boydd


      Chapter 7


      #8.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Harley-Davidson Credit Corp re 2014 Harley-Davidson LFSTC Heritage Softail Classic


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      DeAndra Gayle Boydd Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-15338


      Anna Maria Carlos


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Alaska USA Federal Credit Union re 2009 Nissan Maxima


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Anna Maria Carlos Represented By

      Earl Robertson III

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-13388


      James Leonard Blow, Jr. and Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow


      Chapter 7


      #10.00 Application to Employ GlassRatner Brokerage Services, Inc. as Real Estate Broker and to Enter Into Exclusive Listing Agreement


      Also #11 EH   

      Docket 116

      Tentative Ruling:

      8/21/2019

      BACKGROUND


      On April 15, 2016, James & Amanda Blow ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtors had previously filed a Chapter 7 case on September 4, 2008, receiving a discharge on January 9, 2009 (the "Previous Case"). On June 1, 2016, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. During 2017, Debtors modified the plan once, and also received authorization to enter into a loan modification.


      On March 5, 2019, Debtors filed a second motion to modify plan, seeking to suspend three plan payments, while making up the suspended amount through an increase of

      $49 in the monthly plan payment. The Chapter 13 Trustee filed comments requesting that the matter be set for hearing, and that Debtors provide updated evidence of their current income. Debtors did not set the matter for hearing. On April 10, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss, which Debtors did not timely oppose. On April 30, 2019, however, Debtors filed a notice of conversion to Chapter 7.


      On June 5, 2019, the Court sent a notice of non-entitled to discharge pursuant to 11

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      James Leonard Blow, Jr. and Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow


      Chapter 7

      U.S.C. § 727(a) because the Previous Case was filed within eight years of the instant case. On June 25, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to vacate conversion, asserting that they were unaware they were ineligible for a Chapter 7 discharge, and that they would be able to complete a modified version of their Chapter 13 plan. On August 7, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed its opposition.


      On July 16, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed an application to employ real estate broker. On July 31, 2019, Debtors filed their opposition, which primarily referred to the pending motion to vacate conversion.


      DISCUSSION



      Debtors’ opposition to the Chapter 7 Trustee’s application to employ real estate broker simply refers to the pending motion to vacate conversion, while also indicating that if the motion to vacate conversion is denied, Debtors will file a motion to dismiss or to re-convert.


      As noted in this Court’s tentative ruling on the motion to vacate conversion, Debtors are currently ineligible to be debtors in a Chapter 13 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(e), because they are not "individuals with regular income" as that term is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(30).


      Because the Court’s tentative ruling indicates that the Court is inclined to deny vacation of the conversion order, the only actual basis for Debtor’s opposition to the application to employ, that Debtors having a pending motion which would terminate the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, appears to have been removed. The Court gives no weight to the opposition’s speculation that Debtors may file a motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case or a motion to convert to Chapter 13.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      James Leonard Blow, Jr. and Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow


      Chapter 7

      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to APPROVE the application.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      James Leonard Blow Jr. Represented By Jonathan D Doan

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow Represented By Jonathan D Doan

      Movant(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-13388


      James Leonard Blow, Jr. and Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 Motion to vacate conversion and reinstate chapter 13 case Also #10

      EH       


      Docket 110

      Tentative Ruling:

      8/21/2019

      BACKGROUND


      On April 15, 2016, James & Amanda Blow ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtors had previously filed a Chapter 7 case on September 4, 2008, receiving a discharge on January 9, 2009 (the "Previous Case"). On June 1, 2016, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. During 2017, Debtors modified the plan once, and also received authorization to enter into a loan modification.


      On March 5, 2019, Debtors filed a second motion to modify plan, seeking to suspend three plan payments, while making up the suspended amount through an increase of

      $49 in the monthly plan payment. The Chapter 13 Trustee filed comments requesting that the matter be set for hearing, and that Debtors provide updated evidence of their current income. Debtors did not set the matter for hearing. On April 10, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss, which Debtors did not timely oppose. On April 30, 2019, however, Debtors filed a notice of conversion to Chapter 7.


      On June 5, 2019, the Court sent a notice of non-entitled to discharge pursuant to 11

      U.S.C. § 727(a) because the Previous Case was filed within eight years of the instant

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      James Leonard Blow, Jr. and Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow


      Chapter 7

      case. On June 25, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to vacate conversion, asserting that they were unaware they were ineligible for a Chapter 7 discharge, and that they would be able to complete a modified version of their Chapter 13 plan. On August 7, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed its opposition.


      DISCUSSION



      FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1),(6), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, provides as follows:


    2. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

      1. mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

(6) any other reason that justifies relief


It is not clear whether Debtors whether Debtors are moving pursuant to FED. R.BANKR.

P. Rule 60(b)(1) or (b)(6) (or both). Regarding Rule 60(b)(6), "[i]n order to obtain such relief from a judgment [] ‘extraordinary circumstances’ must exist." U.S. v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128,1130 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ackerman v. U.S., 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)); see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507

U.S. 380, 393 (1993). The Court agrees with the Chapter 7 Trustee that Debtors have failed to show the type of extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6); other than a single citation to Rule 60(b)(6), the motion focuses on Rule 60(b)(1).


Courts disagree about whether, and in what circumstances, attorney error justifies relief under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1). Judge Easterbrook has held that attorney negligence is never an acceptable basis for relief under the rule. See U.S. v. 7108 West Grand Ave., Chicago, Ill., 15 F.3d 632, 633-35 (7th Cir. 1994) ("Yet why should the label ‘gross’ make a difference to the underlying principle: that the errors and misconduct of an agent redound to the detriment of the principal rather than of the

11:00 AM

CONT...


James Leonard Blow, Jr. and Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow


Chapter 7

adversary in litigation?"). The Ninth Circuit has disagreed, holding that in cases of "gross negligence" relief is warranted under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(1). Cmty Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002) ("While the above principles provide the general rule regarding the client-attorney relationship, several circuits have distinguished a client’s accountability for his counsel’s neglectful or negligent acts – too often a normal part of representation – and his responsibility for the more unusual circumstance of his attorney’s extreme negligence or egregious conduct."). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has found ordinary carelessness to be grounds for relief when there exists an extraordinary or unusual extrinsic cause. See, e.g., Medina v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 2944295 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (collecting cases). There is, however, much distance on the spectrum between gross negligence (when an attorney is no longer acting on behalf of a client) and ordinary "carelessness" in which relief under 60(b) will be granted.


Furthermore, courts often distinguish between a deliberate act with unintended consequences and an inadvertent attorney error. Parks v. Armour Pharms., 1995 WL 13232 at *1 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ("This case is distinguishable from that in Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2nd Cir. 1986), wherein the dismissal with prejudice was based upon a stipulation with defense counsel and an apparent misunderstanding by plaintiff of the effect of the stipulation. Here, plaintiffs’ counsel and his secretary unilaterally and inadvertently filed a dismissal containing unintended ‘with prejudice’ language. They did not fail to appreciate the effect of the dismissal with prejudice; they failed to realize what they inadvertently filed.").


The distinction noted in Parks is illustrative of the problem here. As Parks notes, a party should not be relieved from acts that were deliberatively chosen solely because the party did not comprehend the consequences of the decision. Here, the conversion of Debtors’ case to Chapter 7 was clearly an intentional act. As such, Debtors have failed to establish grounds to vacate conversion.


In addition, as noted by the Chapter 7 Trustee, the most recent schedules filed by Debtors identify disposable income of -$28. Therefore, Debtors are ineligible to be in a Chapter 13 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(e) and 11 U.S.C. § 101(30), and thus vacation of the conversion order would be inappropriate.

11:00 AM

CONT...


James Leonard Blow, Jr. and Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow


Chapter 7


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Leonard Blow Jr. Represented By Jonathan D Doan

Joint Debtor(s):

Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow Represented By Jonathan D Doan

Movant(s):

James Leonard Blow Jr. Represented By Jonathan D Doan

Amanda Joyce Atkinson-Blow Represented By Jonathan D Doan

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-12253


Lucy Ellen McHugh


Chapter 7


#12.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

8/21/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 1,750.00 Trustee Expenses: $ 63.00


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Lucy Ellen McHugh Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20316


Joel Eggleton and Heather Marie Eggleton


Chapter 7


#13.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 26


Tentative Ruling:

8/21/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Improper


On July 2, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed its final report and notice of final report. The notice of final report, however, specified a hearing date of August 1, 2019 at 9:30 a.m., which is not an available hearing time. The next day, Trustee received a notice to filer identifying the error and stating that the matter would not be set for calendar.


The notice of final report was refiled on August 8, 2019. While the notice is signed August 2, 2019, service of the notice of hearing did not go out to parties in interest until August 10, 2019. Therefore, pursuant to the instructions on the notice of final report, the deadline to file an objection is August 24, 2019 – after the scheduled hearing. Therefore, notice and service being improper, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter at least three weeks for Trustee to file an amended notice.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joel Eggleton Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Heather Marie Eggleton Represented By Sundee M Teeple

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Joel Eggleton and Heather Marie Eggleton


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20506


Juan Conde


Chapter 7


#14.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 26


Tentative Ruling:

8/21/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 1,263.02 Trustee Expenses: $ 0.00


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Juan Conde Represented By

Roland D Tweed

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20741


Frank Stephan Trautmann and Jirapa Trautmann


Chapter 7


#15.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

8/21/19

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee, have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 659.75 Trustee Expenses: $ 118.74


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Stephan Trautmann Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Jirapa Trautmann Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:03-15174


Devore Stop A General Partners


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


#16.00 Motion to Reconsider (related documents 125 Application (Generic), 130 Motion to Amend, 135 Order on Generic Application (BNC-PDF)) Reconsider Order (docket # 135) Denying Motion for Nunc pro Tunc Employment of Real Estate Broker Jesse Bojorquez with three declarations


From: 6/26/19 EH   

Docket 321


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

Devore Stop Represented By

Hutchison B Meltzer

Defendant(s):

Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

American Business Investments Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Devore Stop A General Partners


Lawrence J Kuhlman Autumn D Spaeth ESQ


Chapter 7

Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

Movant(s):

Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

Plaintiff(s):

William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#17.00 Motion Seeking An Order: (a) To Show Cause As To Why Timothy Sullivan Should Not Be Held In Contempt For Failing To Comply With The Court's Order Compelling Him To Comply With A Subpoena Duces Tecum; and/or (b) Requiring Timothy Sullivan To Produce Documents Without Redaction; and (c) Reopening Expert Discovery For The Purpose Of Having Timothy Sullivan Appear For Continue Deposition


EH   


Docket 563

Tentative Ruling:

8/21/2019

BACKGROUND


On April 25, 2008, Empire Land, LLC ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On December 8, 2008, Debtor’s case was converted to Chapter 7.


Between March 26, 2010, and April 23, 2010, the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Plaintiff") filed 107 adversary proceedings, including this adversary proceeding, 6:10-1319, in which the primary defendant is Empire Partners, Inc. ("Defendant"). While the instant motion was filed in 6:10-1319, it is also related to two other adversary proceedings, 09-1235 and 10-1329.


During the years of litigation in the instant case, the parties have been embroiled in several discovery disputes and have obtained numerous extensions of discovery deadlines. The current discovery dispute began in June 2018, when Defendant served

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

a subpoena duces tecum (the "Subpoena") on Timothy Sullivan ("Sullivan"), an expert witness of Plaintiff. Two weeks later, Plaintiff and Sullivan objected to the Subpoena.


On January 9, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to compel compliance with the Subpoena. After two continuances, the Court heard the matter on March 27, 2019, and, on May 9, 2019, entered an order granting the motion in part. Specifically, the Court granted the motion with respect to request for production number one and denied the motion with respect to requests for production numbers two through ten. Request for product number one states the following:


All DOCUMENTS that constitute communications with PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL that relate to compensation for SULLIVAN’S study or testimony in this LITIGATION. This request includes all communications regarding compensation, as described in the 2010 Advisory Committee Notes, which states:


Under Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i) attorney-expert communications regarding compensation for the expert’s study or testimony may be the subject of discovery. In some cases, this discovery may go beyond the disclosure requirement in Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(vi). It is not limited to compensation for work forming the opinions to be expressed, but extends to all compensation for the study and testimony provided in relation to the action. Any communications about additional benefits to the expert, such as further work in the event of a successful result in the present case, would be included. This exception includes compensation for work done by a person or organization associated with the expert. The objective is to permit full inquiry into such potential sources of bias.


[Dkt. No. 563, Ex. A]. The Court ordered that the relevant documents be produced

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

within thirty days of the entry of the order.


On May 30, 2019, Defendant received a response to the Subpoena. Defendant characterizes the response as follows:


In contemptuous defiance of the Order, on May 30, 2019, Mr. Sullivan allowed counsel for the Trustee to produce heavily redacted invoices, including those attached to the Declaration of Jeffrey Rosenfeld as Exhibit 1. The communications regarding compensation that were produced on behalf of Mr. Sullivan in redacted form prevented discovery and deposition on crucial information about the work that Mr. Sullivan and others at this firm performed in this matter. Based on the materials that were not redacted, it is obvious that most of the work was done by people other than Mr. Sullivan, since most of the hours identified were billed by others, including Ryan Early, Brent Koenig, JT Schwartz, Adam McAbee, Steve Carr, Ada Kaiser, Lisa Wells, Stiles McCauley, and Peter Dennehy.


[Dkt. No. 563, pg. 12, lines 19-28] (citations omitted). Plaintiff generally argues that the redactions were appropriate because the material redacted was not discoverable under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4) and pursuant to attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine.


LEGAL ANALYSIS


Local Rule 9020-1 outlines the two-step process that is initiated when a party in interest seeks a holding finding a party in contempt. First, pursuant to Local Rule 9020-1(b), a motion is filed requesting that the Court issue an order to show cause why a party should not be held in contempt. Pursuant to Local Rule 9020-1(b), the responding party has seven days to respond to the motion. Unsurprisingly, given the short notice window and given the protections afforded by the two-step process, an objection to the issuance of an order to show cause is relatively uncommon. When no objection is filed, the Court generally issues the order to show cause pursuant to Local Rule 9020-1(d).

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7


When an objection to the issuance of an order to show cause is filed, however, the local rules do not provide clear instructions as to the proper procedure to be employed. Given the totality of Local Rule 9020-1, which implies that the Court is to hold a hearing and weigh evidence during the second step of the process, the Court concludes that detailed factual findings are not appropriately issued during the first stage of the process, and that the factual assertions made by Defendant are entitled to deference at this initial stage.

Therefore, while the parties have provided the Court with a number of exhibits, the Court concludes that the resolution of disputed facts is not appropriate at this stage.

Confining itself to the operative legal dispute, the Court turns to FED. R. CIV. P.

Rule 26(b)(4)-(5), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR.

P. Rule 7026, which state, in pertinent part:

  1. Trial Preparation: Experts.

    1. Deposition of an Expert Who May Testify. A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a report from the expert, the deposition may be conducted only after the report is provided.

    2. Trial-Preparation Protection for Draft Reports or Disclosures. Rule 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect drafts of any report or disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2), regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded.

    3. Trial-Preparation Protection for Communications Between a Party’s Attorney and Expert Witness. Rule 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect communications between the party’s attorney and any witness required to provide a report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the communications:

      1. relate to compensation for the expert’s student or testimony;

      2. identify facts or data that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or

      3. identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to be expressed.

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Empire Land, LLC

  2. Claiming Privilege or Protecting Trial-Preparation Materials.

    1. Information Withheld. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparataion material, the party must:

      1. expressly make the claim; and

      2. describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed – and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.


        Chapter 7


        Here, the basis for the Subpoena was FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), and the Subpoena closely tracked the language of the provision, while quoting at length from the relevant advisory committee notes.

        Defendant asks the Court to focus on the requirements set forth in FED. R. CIV.

        P. Rule 26(b)(5) for claiming privilege or protecting trial-preparation materials.1 According to Defendant, because Sullivan did not follow the approach outlined in FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(5)(A), Sullivan has waived privilege, and, as a result, could not have properly invoked an applicable privilege in support of the redactions made.


        Plaintiff asks the Court to focus on the phrase "otherwise discoverable." According to Plaintiff, because the subject of the redactions was outside the scope of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), the subject of the redactions was not discoverable, and, therefore, the procedure outlined in FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(5)(A) did not need to be followed.


        Because FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i) is a 2010 amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties appear to have only provided a single case addressing that subsection, and that case is of limited utility.

        Nevertheless, the Court believes that a resolution of the current legal dispute is apparent.


        First, a brief review of the information outlined in the background section is illustrative. Second request for production number one in the Subpoena closely tracked the language of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i). After Sullivan objected to the Subpoena, Defendant filed a motion to compel arguing that the scope of request for production number one was permissible under FED. R. CIV.

        P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C). Third, the Court entered an order compelling compliance with request for production number one – a natural result given that the

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Empire Land, LLC


        Chapter 7

        request for production closely tracked, and did not exceed, the limits of discoverable information under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C). This case is not a case where a litigant served an overly broad subpoena, which targeted both properly discoverable and privileged information, forcing the other party to assert a privilege to restrict the scope of the subpoena. Instead, the subpoena issued by Defendant was, from the beginning, reasonable and properly tailored to limit the request to discoverable information. Because the subpoena did not seek privileged information, there was no need for Sullivan to respond by invoking privilege through the procedures of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(5)(A).


        Instead, it appears that Defendant is now asking to increase the scope of the Subpoena, requesting new information that was not within its original scope. As noted by Defendant in its motion to compel:


        RFP # 1 seeks discovery of all communications between plaintiff’s counsel and the expert that relate to the expert’s compensation. The request is based on the language adopted in 2010 as Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(4)(C)(i), and incorporates the 2010 Advisory Committee Notes with respect to the type of discovery that is permitted with respect to communications regarding compensation.


        [Dkt. No. 495, pg. 15, lines 11-17]. And, as noted earlier, because the Subpoena was properly and narrowly drafted from the beginning, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel with respect to document production number one.


        As noted by the court in Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 584: "As the 2010 Advisory Committee Note suggests, the focus of permitted discovery is on the amount of expert compensation, not on the tasks performed that led to compensation." Quite simply, in attempting to argue that Sullivan has waived privilege related to this supplemental information, Defendant ignores the fact that the scope of the Subpoena never targeted this supplemental information in the first place.


        To the extent Plaintiff raises the argument, for the reasons detailed in Defendant’s motion and reply, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that "[a] privilege log is only required where, in response to a discovery request, a party withholds information that is ‘otherwise discoverable.’" [Dkt. No. 567, pg. 9, lines 17-18]. On the other hand, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s more limited argument that:

        Since Request No. 1 sought "attorney-expert communications" that fall

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Empire Land, LLC

        within the exception in Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), the Request necessarily did not require the production of detailed work descriptions in the invoice back-up documents that fall outside the exception. Accordingly, the Trustee and Mr. Sullivan did not need to assert attorney-client privilege or work product objections to Request No. 1 in order to protect the detailed work descriptions in those invoice back-up documents."


        Chapter 7


        The Court notes that to the extent the redacted information actually constituted information within the scope of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), then the Court would consider the redactions to be violations of the Court’s order compelling a response to request for production number one. While there are portions of Defendant’s motion which do raise that contention, the pleadings presented to the Court seem primarily focused on whether redactions were improper because any applicable privilege was waived.

        For the foregoing reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

        Michael I. Gottfried

        ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

        Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

        Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

        Defendant(s):

        Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

        Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Empire Land, LLC


        Chapter 7

        James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

        Larry Day Represented By

        Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

        Neil M Miller Represented By

        Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

        Paul Roman Represented By

        Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

        O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

        Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

        Movant(s):

        Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

        Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

        Larry Day Represented By

        Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

        Neil M Miller Represented By

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Empire Land, LLC


        Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


        Chapter 7

        Plaintiff(s):

        RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

        Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

        Michael I. Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

        Alexander J Suarez

        Trustee(s):

        Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

        Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

        Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

        Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

        Amy Evans

        Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

        2:00 PM

        6:13-16964


        Narinder Sangha


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


        #18.00 Motion To Extend Discovery Cutoff And Related Dates Set Forth In Scheduling Order For Ninety Days


        EH   


        Docket 311


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

        Defendant(s):

        Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Donald Reid Charity J Manee

        Movant(s):

        Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Donald Reid Charity J Manee

        Plaintiff(s):

        Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

        Trustee(s):

        Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:15-14230


        Home Security Stores, Inc.


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01214 Pringle v. Histen, III


        #19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01214. Complaint by John Pringle against Harry J Histen, APC, Harry J Histen, III. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Complaint for: (1) Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11

        U.S.C. § 544(b) and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3439.04(a)(2), 3439.05; (2) Avoidance of Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B); (3) Recovery of Avoided Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550; and (4) Disallowance of Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Goe, Robert)


        From: 1/9/19, 3/6/19, 5/8/19 EH   

        Docket 1

        *** VACATED *** REASON: DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED 7/25/19

        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

        Defendant(s):

        Harry J Histen, III Pro Se

        Plaintiff(s):

        John Pringle Represented By

        Robert P Goe

        Trustee(s):

        John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Home Security Stores, Inc.


        Charity J Manee


        Chapter 7

        2:00 PM

        6:19-15045


        Howard Edward Terrell, Jr.


        Chapter 7


        #20.00 CONT Creditor, CA Home Buyers 247, LLC Motion to Dismiss Case with a Bar to Refiling


        From: 7/31/19 EH       

        Docket 11

        Tentative Ruling:

        8/21/2019


        BACKGROUND


        Debtor Howard Terrell ("Debtor") filed a voluntary Chapter 7 Petition on June 10, 2019. Creditor California Home Buyers ("Creditor") filed this motion to dismiss with a one-year refiling bar on July 8, 2019.


        Debtor was previously in Chapter 13 bankruptcy until January of 2018. Creditor alleges that Debtor and Creditor entered into a partnership during that bankruptcy, where Creditor would pay Debtor’s mortgage arrears, and also pay for 6 months of Debtor’s mortgage payments, as well as for the cost of home renovations, in return for a 50% interest in Debtor’s home at 944 Randall Ranch Rd., Corona, CA, 92881 (the "Property"). At the end of the renovations, the Property would be sold and the proceeds split.


        Creditor argues that he was fraudulently induced into this agreement by Debtor, who has allegedly intentionally delayed the renovation of the Property, and who has also failed to make mortgage payments, requiring Creditor to continue paying the Property’s mortgage to prevent foreclosure. Creditor also alleges that Debtor has failed to make the financial contributions required under the agreement to meet the extra needs of the renovation. This was all part of an alleged scheme to continue living at the Property for free.

        Creditor filed suit in state court on May 24, 2019, for breach of contract and fraud,

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Howard Edward Terrell, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        among other causes of relief. Debtor, as noted above, filed for Chapter 7 relief on June

        10. Due to the reasons stated above, Creditor alleges that Debtor’s Chapter 7 petition was in bad faith, and that it should be dismissed with a one-year refiling bar. In addition, Creditor also argues that Debtor is a serial filer who has abused the bankruptcy system, as Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in October of 2009, with a discharge in March of 2010, and he also filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in April of 2017, which was dismissed in January of 2018 with a 180-day refiling bar.


        Debtor filed his opposition on July 17, 2019. Debtor alleges that the delays in the project were caused by Creditor, who has total control over the rehabilitation project and hasn’t been consulting with Debtor as to the work done on the home. In addition, Debtor notes that his Chapter 13 case was voluntarily dismissed in 2018 under the explicit requirements of the partnership agreement between him and Creditor, which required Debtor to dismiss his case.


        DISCUSSION


        11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3)(a) allows a court to dismiss a case for abuse if it finds the case to have been filed in bad faith. Under § 349(a), the dismissal of a case can be with prejudice "for cause," which can result in a bar against refiling for a time period set by the court. Bad faith, as cause for dismissal, is based on four factors and judged under the totality of the circumstances. See Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt), 171 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 1999).

        These factors are:

        1. Whether the debtor misrepresented facts in his petition, or unfairly manipulated the Bankruptcy Code;

        2. The debtor’s history of filings and dismissals;

        3. Whether the debtor only intended to defeat state court litigation; 4- Whether egregious behavior is present. See Id.

        The Court will begin by noting that, contrary to Creditor’s assertions, the Debtor’s history of filings and dismissals is not prejudicial to the Debtor. The dismissal of Debtor’s 2018 case was a voluntary dismissal, as explicitly required by their partnership agreement, and the 180-day bar against refiling was imposed as a product of this voluntary dismissal. Moreover, it does not appear Movant was a creditor in any prior bankruptcy.

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Howard Edward Terrell, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        The question then turns to whether Debtor has misrepresented facts in his petition, unfairly manipulated the Bankruptcy Code, or has engaged in egregious behavior.


        Creditor’s primary arguments of misrepresentation, unfair manipulation of the Code, and egregious behavior are all premised on Creditor’s allegations as contained within his state court claim against Debtor. The one in-case example of misrepresentation is that Debtor has scheduled Creditor’s claim as "unknown" instead of Creditor’s claimed damages of $498,471.59. Debtor claims he scheduled the claim as "unknown" because he didn’t know the exact extent of Creditor’s claim at the time, and this is backed by the fact that Creditor’s state court claim did not request specific damages, only stating that Creditor had "at least $480,000" in damages midway through its factual allegations.


        The Court is disinclined to find that the scheduling of Creditor’s claim as "unknown" as a misrepresentation. In addition, the Court does not find that the allegations of Debtor’s pre-petition actions are sufficient to warrant dismissal, let alone dismissal with a bar against refiling. Rather, Movant is free to seek relief from stay to continue the state court action and file an adversarial proceeding to determine the dischargeability of the debt in question, as well as its total amount.


        TENTATIVE RULING


        8/21/2019


        SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: YES

        THE COURT IS INCLINED TO DENY MOVANT’S REQUEST.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Howard Edward Terrell Jr. Represented By John R Setlich

        2:00 PM

        CONT...

        Movant(s):


        Howard Edward Terrell, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        CA Homebuyres 247 LLC Represented By Matthew Abbasi

        Trustee(s):

        Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:18-20756


        Karl W Detlefsen


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:19-01057 Maslar v. Detlefsen


        #21.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01057. Complaint by Jennifer Maslar against Karl W Detlefsen. willful and malicious injury))


        From: 6/5/19 EH   

        Docket 1


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Karl W Detlefsen Represented By Christopher Hewitt

        Defendant(s):

        Karl W Detlefsen Pro Se

        Plaintiff(s):

        Jennifer Maslar Represented By Sanaz S Bereliani

        Trustee(s):

        Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:16-18182


        Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


        Chapter 13


        #22.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 11 by Claimant Natasha Reynoso and Mark Reynoso

        HOLDING DATE


        From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19


        EH   


        Docket 44


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Movant(s):

        Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:16-18182


        Douglas Edward Goodman


        Chapter 13

        Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


        #23.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [13] Amended Complaint by Michael J Hemming on behalf of Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01277. Complaint by Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Douglas Edward Goodman, Anne Louise Goodman. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) filed by Plaintiff Mark & Natasha Reynoso)

        (Holding Date)


        From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19


        Also #24 EH   

        Docket 13


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Defendant(s):

        Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Anne Louise Goodman Represented By

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Douglas Edward Goodman


        Edward T Weber


        Chapter 13

        Plaintiff(s):

        Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:16-18182


        Douglas Edward Goodman


        Chapter 13

        Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


        #24.00 Status Conference RE: [139] Crossclaim by Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman against Theresa Mann, Jose Pastora (Weber, Edward)


        Also #23 EH   

        Docket 139


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Defendant(s):

        Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

        Plaintiff(s):

        Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Douglas Edward Goodman


        Chapter 13

        2:00 PM

        6:17-20025


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


        #25.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference RE: [19] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint to Determine Dischargeability Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and COUNTERCLAIM of Shatara Adrienne Thompson for Defamation, Counterclaim by Robert Lee Thompson Jr, Shatara Adrienne Thompson against Beatriz M Gutierrez (Lampl, Robert)


        From: 6/26/19 Also #26 - #28

        EH   


        Docket 19


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        Defendant(s):

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        Plaintiff(s):

        Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

        Trustee(s):

        Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:17-20025


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


        #26.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01052. Complaint by Beatriz M Gutierrez against Robert Lee Thompson Jr, Shatara Adrienne Thompson . willful and malicious injury))


        From: 6/26/19 Also #25 - #28

        EH   


        Docket 1


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        Defendant(s):

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        Plaintiff(s):

        Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:17-20025


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


        #27.00 Order to show cause why counter-complaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution


        Also #25 - #28


        EH       


        Docket 19


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        Defendant(s):

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        Plaintiff(s):

        Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

        Trustee(s):

        Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:17-20025


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01052 Gutierrez v. Thompson, Jr et al


        #28.00 Motion In Limine, Declaration And Proposed Order To Prevent The Defendant(s) And Counter-Plaintiff From Introducing Any Undisclosed Witnesses, Witness Testimony, And Exhibits, Or In The Alternative, To Enter A Default Against The Defendant(s) And Counter-Plaintiff Without Prejudice, For Failure To Comply


        Also #25 - #27


        EH   


        Docket 61

        Tentative Ruling:

        8/21/2019

        BACKGROUND


        On December 5, 2017, Robert & Shatara Thompson ("Defendants") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On March 19, 2018, Defendants received a discharge, and the case was subsequently closed.


        On March 1, 2018, Beatriz Gutierrez ("Plaintiff") filed a non-dischargeability adversary complaint against Defendants. On April 2, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the Court on May 3, 2018. On June 1, 2018, Defendants filed their answer.1


        On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion in limine, generally seeking to preclude Defendants from introducing any undisclosed witnesses, witness testimony, and

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        exhibits. The motion asserts that Defendants have: (1) "failed to provide any type of discovery, disclose any exhibits, and identify any witnesses"; (2) failed to cooperate in the preparation of a joint pre-trial stipulation; (3) failed to file a pre-trial stipulation.

        The motion also asserts that over a period of approximately fifteen months, Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to contact Defendants regarding discovery and required disclosures, but did not receive any meaningful response.


        On August 6, 2019, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion in limine, and also filed a pre-trial statement. The Court notes that Defendant’s opposition does not contain a declaration or any admissible evidence. On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed her reply.


        DISCUSSION



        FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26 outlines the litigants’ obligation to disclose certain information.

        FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 37(c)(1) states, in pertinent part:


        If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.

        And the Ninth Circuit has recently stated:

        The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to provide to other parties the name of each individual likely to have discoverable information – along with the subjects of that information – that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses. And a party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) must supplement or correct its disclosure in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure is incomplete or incorrect, and if the addition or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. A party that does not timely identify a witness under Rule 26 may not use that

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.

        witness to supply evidence at a trial unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. Indeed, Rule 37(c)(1) is intended to put teeth into the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a) and (e).


        Chapter 7


        Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 861 (9th Cir. 2014). Factors that the Court may consider include: "(1) the prejudice or surprise to the party against whom the testimony is offered; (2) the ability of the party to cure the prejudice; (3) the extent to which introducing such testimony would disrupt the trial; and (4) the moving party’s bad faith or willfulness." Woodworker’s Supply, Inc. v.

        Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1999).

        Here, the evidence submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion establishes that Plaintiff took the initiative to seek discovery disclosures over a period of several months, and that Defendants did not provide the disclosures required by the FRCP. Defendants have offered no explanation to justify the non-disclosure, and the Court cannot conclude that the error is harmless. See, e.g.. Davis v. Green, 2015 WL 3505665 at *3 (N.D. Ga. 2015) ("The Court also finds that the failure to disclose these witnesses is not harmless because Defendant Green did not having the opportunity to depose them and conduct proper discovery."); see also Ollier, 768 F.3d at 862-63 (outlining harm to adversarial system by non-compliance with disclosure requirements). And at this late stage of the proceeding – Defendants did not make any attempt to comply with the required disclosures or draft a pre-trial statement until more than a month after the pre-trial conference – further delay would severely disrupt the litigation schedule.


        The Court also notes that while Defendants are currently pro se, Defendants have been represented by counsel during the majority of these adversary proceedings, including during the period when the discovery disclosures were due. Therefore, the current pro se status of Defendants has no bearing on their failure to comply with discovery disclosures.


        Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has alleged a failure to comply with Local Rule 7016 and FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 16 because Defendants failed to meaningfully participate or prepare for the pre-trial conference. Because Defendants were pro se at the time of the pre-trial conference, and noting that Defendants have since made some effort to fulfill their obligations under these rules, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for judgment or default to be entered against Defendants to not be appropriate. The Court does note, however, that the pre-trial conference was continued approximately sixty days for Defendants to seek new legal counsel or competent legal advice, and it does not appear that Defendants have taken advantage of the opportunity.

        Tentative Ruling:

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Robert Lee Thompson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of precluding Defendants from introducing any witness or exhibits which were not timely disclosed.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        Defendant(s):

        Robert Lee Thompson Jr Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Shatara Adrienne Thompson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

        Movant(s):

        Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

        Beatriz M Gutierrez Represented By Robert S Lampl

        Plaintiff(s):

        Beatriz M Gutierrez Pro Se

        Trustee(s):

        Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:18-12282


        Frank Javier Valderrama


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01141 Carrillo v. Valderrama


        #29.00 Order to show cause why complaint should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution


        Also #30 EH   

        Docket 45


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

        Defendant(s):

        Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

        Plaintiff(s):

        Jose Carrillo Represented By

        John F Bazan

        Trustee(s):

        Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:18-12282


        Frank Javier Valderrama


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01141 Carrillo v. Valderrama


        #30.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [36] Amended Complaint THIRD by John F Bazan on behalf of Jose Carrillo against Jose Carrillo


        From: 4/10/19, 7/17/19 Also #29

        EH   


        Docket 36


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

        Defendant(s):

        Frank Javier Valderrama Represented By Robert G Uriarte

        Plaintiff(s):

        Jose Carrillo Represented By

        John F Bazan

        Trustee(s):

        Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:18-10939


        Vance Zachary Johnson


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01100 Zamucen & Curren LLP v. Johnson


        #31.00 Motion to Dismiss Zamucen & Curren's Amended Objection to Debtor's Discharge


        EH   


        Docket 41

        Tentative Ruling:

        8/21/2019

        BACKGROUND


        On February 7, 2018, Vance Johnson ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On July 3, 2018, Defendant’s case was converted to Chapter 7.


        On May 1, 2018, Zamucen & Curren, LLP ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendant for objection to discharge. On July 2, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On July 16, 2018, Defendant filed his answer.


        On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a pleading of uncertain nature (the "Pleading"). On the docket, the Pleading is identified as the "Amended Complaint to Debtor’s Discharge of His Debts in Bankruptcy, Including Debtor’s Domestic Support Obligation." The actual title of the Pleading, however, is "Creditor, Zamucen & Curren’s Amended Objection to Debtor’s Discharge of His Debts in Bankruptcy, Including Debtor’s Domestic Support Obligation." The Court notes that, to the extent the Pleading was intended to operate as an amended complaint, the Pleading was filed far after the deadlines set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 15(a)(1) for amendments as a

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Vance Zachary Johnson


        Chapter 7

        matter of course, and was not done with leave of the Court or with consent of Defendant. The Pleading went unnoticed while the parties stipulation to the continuance of the status conference on five occasions.


        On July 3, 2019, Defendant filed a request to dismiss the Pleading, but did not set the request for hearing. On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed an application shortening time, requesting that the Court not consider Defendant’s motion at the July status conference; for a variety of technical and procedural issues, the Court denied the application.


        On July 18, 2019, Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss the Pleading, this time setting the matter for hearing. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff withdrew the Pleading.


        DISCUSSION



        Because Plaintiff did not file the Pleading within the time required by FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 15(a), and noting that Defendant did not consent to the late filing of an amended pleading, the Court presumes that the filing of the Pleading was of no effect, and that it was the burden of Plaintiff to seek leave of the Court to allow the Pleading.


        Nevertheless, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the Pleading on August 5, 2019, renders the instant motion to strike the motion MOOT.


        The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.



        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


        Party Information

        2:00 PM

        CONT...

        Debtor(s):


        Vance Zachary Johnson


        Chapter 7

        Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

        Defendant(s):

        Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

        Movant(s):

        Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

        Plaintiff(s):

        Zamucen & Curren LLP Represented By Patricia J Grace

        Trustee(s):

        Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

        2:00 PM

        6:18-10939


        Vance Zachary Johnson


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:18-01106 Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Johnson


        #32.00 Plaintiff's First Amended Motion For Summary Judgment Also #33

        EH       


        Docket 29

        Tentative Ruling:

        8/21/2019

        PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


        On February 7, 2018, Vance Johnson ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On July 3, 2018, Defendant’s case was converted to Chapter 7.


        On May 7, 2018, Bankers Health Group, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed a non-dischargeability complaint against Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), (a)(4), and (a)(6). On June 7, 2018, Defendant filed his answer. After the initial status conference, the Court entered a scheduling order on July 17, 2018. Subsequently, the parties stipulated to a continuance of the status conference, and an extension of certain dates in the scheduling order, on three occasions.


        On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and amended the motion four days later. On July 31, 2019, Defendant filed his opposition. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is limited to § 523(a)(2)(B) and (a)(6).

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Vance Zachary Johnson


        Chapter 7

        FACTUAL BACKGROUND



        Defendant is or was the sole owner Temecula Valley Pain Medical Group, Inc. ("TVPMG"). On July 19, 2017, Johnson entered into a commercial loan on behalf of TVPMG for the amount of $500,000 (the "Loan"). The Loan documentation included a statement of intended purpose which stated that the Loan was to be used for "practice expansion."


        By September 2017, however, TVPMG started transitioning into a collection funded business. Ultimately, only five of the eighty-four scheduled payments were made on the Loan.


        Plaintiff argues that TVPMG was not a stable, valuable, and successful business at the time the Loan was entered into, that Defendant knew the business was declining and had abandoned efforts to expand the business, and that Defendant spent the entirety of the Loan proceeds during 2017 to cover expenses of a "dying" business. Defendant argues in response that the financial information presented at the time of the Loan’s execution was accurate and/or immaterial.


        LEGAL STANDARD


        Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 56(a) (incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7056).


        The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and identify facts that show a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Vance Zachary Johnson


        Chapter 7

        metaphysical doubt as to the material fact…." Matsushita Electrical Industry Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587 (1986). The court must conduct its analysis viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

        Bell v. Cameron Meadows Land Co., 669 F.2d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1982). All reasonable doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. Hector v. Wiens, 533 F.2d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1976).


        A fact is material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2014). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id.

        11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B) and (a)(6) state the following:

        1. A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –

          (2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by –

    2. use of a statement in writing –

      1. that is materially false;

      2. respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;

      3. on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services or credit reasonably relied; and

      4. that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive

(6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity


Regarding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B), the Ninth Circuit has summarized the elements of a non-dischargeability claim as follows:

  1. a representation of fact by the debtor;

  2. that was material;

  3. that the debtor knew at the time to be false;

  4. that the debtor made with the intention of deceiving the creditor;

  5. upon which the creditor relief;

  6. that the creditor’s reliance was reasonable;

  7. that damage proximately resulted from the representation.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7


In re Candland, 90 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1996)

Here, Defendant disputes that Plaintiff has satisfied the second, third, and fourth elements.

Regarding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), the Ninth Circuit has stated the following:

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual debtor may not discharge a debt for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity. The malicious injury requirement is separate from the willful injury requirement. A "willful" injury is a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury. A "malicious" injury involves (1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse."

In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008).


LEGAL ANALYSIS


A. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B)

As outlined in paragraphs 10-15 of Plaintiff’s statement of uncontroverted facts, Plaintiff alleges two different categories of representations which it asserts satisfy the § 523(a)(2)(B) standard: (1) that TVPMG was a stable, successful business; and (2) that the Loan was to be used for "practice expansion." The difficulty in fitting these allegations to the elements of a § 523(a)(2)(B) claim is rendered apparent by the operative paragraph of Plaintiff’s brief, paragraph 21, which states, in pertinent part:


Johnson submitted the Johnson PFS, CFI, and the Statement of Intended Purpose to BHG to induce BHG to make the Loan. The Johnson PFS, CFI, and the Statement of Intended Purpose represented Johnson’s financial condition and, in particular, his overall ability to generate income. Furthermore, while the Debtor represented to BHG that TVPMG was going to use the Loan Proceeds for "practice expansion," TVPMG did the exact opposite and retracted to focus solely on collections. Contrarily, TVPMG already tried and failed to expand in 2016, reimbursements were down, it was receiving 70% less per patient, and had a grim financial future. TVPMG was not a

2:00 PM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson

sustainable business at the time Johnson applied for the Loan. There can be no doubt that Johnson’s statements to BHG in the Johnson PFS, CFI, and the Statement of Intended Purpose was false. Johnson represented in such documents that TVPMG was a stable, valuable, and successful business, with a positive financial future, and the ability to timely repay BHG. Furthermore, Johnson said he was obtaining a commercial loan for TVPMG for practice expansion. Instead, TVPMG did the opposite, it did not expand or attempt to expand, but transitioned to a collection only business.


Chapter 7


Glaringly absent in the above excerpt is the presence of a particular, factual piece of information regarding financial condition which Plaintiff contends was false at the time TVPMG or Defendant made the representation. The various adjectives used by Plaintiff in characterizing TVPMG are of Plaintiff’s own creation – nowhere in the loan documentation does Defendant assert that TVPMG was a "stable, valuable, and successful" business. And even if such a representation were made, such vague and ambiguous adjectives do not constitute factual representations.


Indeed, the declaration of Daniel Johnston submitted in support of the motion is more precise in its description. Paragraph 6 of the declaration states the following: "[t]he information Johnson presented in the Johnson PFS, CFI, and Statement of Intended Purpose led BHG to believe that Johnson’s and TVPMG’s overall ability to generate income was sufficient to approve the Loan." The distinction revealed above is illuminating: it was Plaintiff’s belief that appeared to be erroneous, not the factual information in the loan documents themselves. Nowhere in Plaintiff’s statement of uncontroverted facts does Plaintiff allege, let alone establish, that the inaccuracy of its conclusions about TVPMG was proximately caused by inaccurate financial information presented by TVPMG or Johnson.


Turning to the statement of intended purpose, there are significant issues with relying on Johnson’s statement that the specific business reason he applied for the loan is "Practice Expansion." First, this statement of intended primary purpose is just that – a statement of intended purpose. While a statement of intent may certainly be false, as noted by Defendant, establishing intent is an issue not commonly resolved at the summary judgment stage. While it is undisputed that TVPMG began significantly decreasing its operating in September 2017, Defendant has offered an explanation for the change – "after the funding of the Loan, the effort to recruit spine surgeons was unsuccessful." [Dkt. No. 34, ¶ 13]. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court cannot conclude that Johnson did not intend to

2:00 PM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

attempt to expand TVPMG at the time of the execution of the Loan.

But there is a more fundamental problem with the use of the statement of intended purpose as the basis for Plaintiff’s § 523(a)(2)(B) claim. The first two subsections of § 523(a)(2)(B) require that a written statement must be: (1) materially false; and (2) respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition. Clearly, the personal financial statement and the company financial statement are statements about financial conditions, but Plaintiff’s has failed to allege with any particularity that those statements are "materially false." And while Plaintiff has alleged that the statement of intended purpose is materially false, it not clear that that statement is a statement regarding "financial condition." See generally Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, 138 S. Ct. 1752, 1761 (2018) ("We also agree that a statement is ‘respecting’ a debtor’s financial condition if it has a direct relation to or impact on the debtor’s overall financial status.") (extensively discussing the meaning of statement about financial condition); see also In re Kosinski, 424 B.R. 599 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2010) (profit/loss projection not a statement about financial condition because it did not represent either historical or present financial information).


For the reasons noted above, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s has met its burden on its § 523(a)(2)(B) at the summary judgment stage. Specifically, the Court notes that the only representation which Plaintiff has specifically alleged to be false, is the representation regarding the statement of the intended loan purpose. This basis is inadequate to support judgment on the § 523(a)(2)

(B) at this stage, because it necessarily invokes the intent of Debtor at the time of the Loan execution, and, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Defendant has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding his state of mind. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not provided legal support for the contention that the statement regarding intended purpose of loan constitutes a statement regarding financial condition.

B. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)

As noted above, the Ninth Circuit has stated the following with regard to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6):


Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual debtor may not discharge a debt for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity. The malicious injury requirement is separate from the willful injury requirement. A "willful" injury is a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury. A "malicious"

2:00 PM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson

injury involves (1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse."


Chapter 7


In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008).

As noted by Defendant, in the Ninth Circuit, "an intentional breach of contract cannot give rise to non-dischargeability under S 523(a)(6) unless it is accompanied by conduct that constitutes a tort under state law." Lockerby v.

Sierra, 535 F.3d 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008). Earlier this month, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel provided a helpful expansion of this principle:


There are at least two relevant ways a creditor may take a judgment consisting of damages for breach of contract and prove that it is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6). The first would be to establish that the breach of contract also constituted a tort such as conversion that the debtor undertook willfully and maliciously within the meaning of § 523(a)(6). . . .


Alternatively, the creditor could prove a "tortious breach of contract." But to do so, the creditor would need to show not only tortious conduct, but also that the debtor’s conduct violated "a fundamental public policy of the state."


In re Zeeb, 2019 WL 3778360 at *6 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019) (citations and quotations omitted).


Plaintiff fails to argue that Defendant either committed tortious conduct under state law or that Debtor’s conduct violated a fundamental public policy of the state. Furthermore, the only false representations which Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made with any particularity were regarding the statement of intended purpose of the loan. As more fully outlined above, the Court is hesitant to conclude that Defendant’s failure to use the proceeds in accordance with a statement of intended purpose constitutes a tort or a breach of a fundamental public policy of California. Additionally, the Court has received conflicting evidence regarding the business intentions of Defendant at the time of entering into the Loan. When resolving this evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Defendant, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has met its burden in demonstrating that Defendant had no intention of attempting to use the funds for expansion. And the Court has not been presented with any argument that later deviating from a statement of intended purpose would constitute tortious conduct under California law.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7


Tentative Ruling:

The Court is inclined to DENY the motion in its entirety.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

Defendant(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

Movant(s):

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

2:00 PM

6:18-10939


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01106 Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Johnson


#33.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01106. Complaint by Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC against Vance Zachary Johnson. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 7/10/18, 2/20/19, 4/24/19, 7/3/19, 7/17/19 Also #32

EH       


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

Defendant(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

Plaintiff(s):

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

2:00 PM

CONT...


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

11:00 AM

6:17-12232


Margarito Martinez


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:19-01051 Martinez v. Garza et al


#1.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01051. Complaint by Margarito Martinez against Cesar Emilo Garza, Noe Pelayo, George Arthur Macias, Flor Valladares, Henry Gonzalez, West Coast Realty, Inc., Grand Capital Group, M&M Associates. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy)))


From: 5/23/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Margarito Martinez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Defendant(s):

Cesar Garza Pro Se

Noe Pelayo Pro Se

George Arthur Macias Pro Se

Flor Valladares Pro Se

Henry Gonzalez Pro Se

West Coast Plus Realty, Inc. Pro Se

Grand Capital Group Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...


Margarito Martinez


Chapter 13

M&M Associates Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Margarito Martinez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-14201


Donald Leslie Ogden and Susan Kay Ogden


Chapter 13


#2.00 Show Cause Hearing re Debtor's Certification of Compliance under 11 USC § 1328 (A) and Application for Entry of Discharge


EH   


Docket 59

*** VACATED *** REASON: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FILED 8/13/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Donald Leslie Ogden Represented By Timothy S Huyck

Joint Debtor(s):

Susan Kay Ogden Represented By Timothy S Huyck

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-13433


Christina Hill


Chapter 13


#3.00 Order to show cause re Chapter 13 Discharge EH   

Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christina Hill Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-19614


Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


Chapter 13


#4.00 Application for Compensation for Andy C Warshaw, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/1/2018 to 4/11/2019, Fee: $3640, Expenses: $0.


EH   


Docket 90

*** VACATED *** REASON: HEARING ADVANCED TO 7/11/19 AT 11 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Movant(s):

Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-14277


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to vacate dismissal order and reinstate Chapter 13 Case pursuant to F.R.C.P. 9023 and 11 U.S.C. Section 105


From: 8/1/19 EH       

Docket 48

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/13/19

Tentative Ruling:

8/1/2019

BACKGROUND


On May 21, 2008, Cesar Orozco ("Debtor") filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition. On August 9, 2018, his Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed. On May 7, 2019, the Chapter 13 Trustee (‘Trustee") filed a motion to dismiss Debtor’s case for delinquency. On June 6, 2019, Trustee’s motion to dismiss was granted. On June 28, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal.


Debtor’s case was dismissed due to a two-month delinquency in plan payments. Debtor’s counsel alleges that Debtor fell behind because of a misunderstanding that the submission of a payment in January had made Debtor current on payments.

Instead, Debtor was one month short, as a new payment had come due in late January. Debtor’s counsel alleges that he attempted to reach Debtor prior to the hearing in June to address this problem, but was unable to due to Debtor having recently changed his cellphone number. Debtor now asserts that he has the funds to become current through the July plan payment.


Trustee filed a conditional acceptance of Debtor’s motion to vacate dismissal on July 1, 2019. Trustee’s conditions are that: 1- Debtor turns over $1,784 to become current on plan payments, and 2- that Debtor submits his 2018 state and federal tax returns

11:00 AM

CONT...


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13

and refunds to the Trustee.


DISCUSSION


Debtor bases his argument for vacating dismissal on F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) and (6), mistake and "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment," as well as the Court’s inherent equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), and the error rule under F.R.C.P. 61 which permits the setting aside of a judgment if to not do so otherwise would be inconsistent with substantial justice.


The problem with Debtor’s arguments is that: 1- the Court did not make an error under FRCP 61, the Debtor did, and 2- Debtor’s counsel did not make an error under FRCP 60(b)(1). Debtor was serially delinquent on plan payments within a few months of the confirmation of his plan, and this was the core root of the dismissal, not neglect or mistake by his counsel or the Court.


However, in light of Trustee’s conditional acceptance of Debtor’s motion, the Court is inclined to find grounds to vacate its dismissal of Debtor’s case under the "any other reason" language of F.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) and its inherent equitable powers under 11

U.S.C. § 105(a). If Debtor has the funds to become current on plan payments, and is prepared to turn over his tax returns and refund, then the Court finds that vacating dismissal would not cause an undue prejudicial impact to his creditors.


TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: NONE


THE COURT IS INCLINED TO GRANT THIS MOTION UNDER FRCP 60(B)(6) AND 11 U.S.C. § 105.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Cesar Orozco


Party Information


Chapter 13

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18809


Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


Chapter 13


#6.00 Motion to Reconsider (related documents 93) Order on Motion For Sanctions/Disgorgement


CASE DISMISSED 8/19/19


EH   


Docket 97


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19093


Yolanda Williams


Chapter 13


#7.00 Application for Compensation with proof of service for Dana Travis, Debtor's Attorney, Period: to, Fee: $960.00, Expenses: $.


EH   


Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

8/22/2019


Application: $960 for resolution of motion for relief from stay by stipulation (no opposition and no hearing)


Opposition: Trustee recommends $600


Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


I note that the application was not served on all creditors. The application requests less than $1,000, however, and it is customary that we only review Trustee’s comments on requests less than $1,000.


Tentative:


On October 26, 2018, Yolanda Williams ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 11, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On July 23, 2019, Debtor’s counsel, Dana Travis ("Counsel") filed an application requesting an additional $960 in fees relating to a motion for relief from stay (the "RFS Motion") filed by U.S. Bank National Association ("Creditor"). Trustee’s comments, filed August 6, 2019, recommend approval of a reduced amount of

$600


Creditor filed the RFS Motion on May 20, 2019. No opposition was filed by

11:00 AM

CONT...


Yolanda Williams

Debtor. On June 18, 2019, Debtor and Creditor stipulated to an adequate


Chapter 13

protection agreement, which was entered by the Court on the same day – one week prior to the scheduled hearing.


While the adequate protection agreement entered into by Debtor appears to be a routine adequate protection agreement, the fee application of Counsel seems to indicate that there was some dispute about Debtor’s payment history or whether payments were applied properly. Because Debtor never filed an opposition to the motion for relief from the automatic stay, the Court does not have information regarding the details of that dispute.


Nevertheless, the Court does not consider the relatively de minimis time spent resolving the dispute, whatever its nature, to be unreasonable. In all, it appears Counsel made three phone calls related to Debtor’s payment history, for which a total of .7 hours were billed. Nevertheless, the Court is inclined to disallow fees related to the preparation of an opposition to the motion to dismiss. This opposition was prepared eighteen days before it was due and was never filed with the Court. Additionally, it is unclear why the opposition was not filed with the Court because, from the filling records of Counsel, it does not appear a adequate protection stipulation was reached with Creditor until six days after the opposition deadline.


The Court is inclined to APPROVE fees in the amount of $840 and DISAPPROVE the remaining $120.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Applicant may decline to appear and will be deemed to submit to the tentative.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Yolanda Williams Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Yolanda Williams Represented By Dana Travis Dana Travis

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Yolanda Williams


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20737


Alfredo N Adriano


Chapter 13


#8.00 Order to show cause why Alon Darvish should not be sanctioned


CASE DISMISSED 3/14/19


EH   


Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alfredo N Adriano Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11370


Michael Wright


Chapter 13


#9.00 Motion for Order to Disallow Claim #3 of PYOD, LLC Also #10

EH       


Docket 34

Tentative Ruling:

8/22/19

BACKGROUND:


On February 22, 2019, Michael Wright ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On May 24, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On March 22, 2019, PYOD LLC ("PYOD") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $6,219.54 ("Claim 3"). On April 5, 2019, American Express National Bank ("American Express") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $10,274.43 ("Claim 12").


On July 15, 2019, Debtor objected to Claim 3 and Claim 12. Amended claim objections were filed on July 17, 2019. Debtor argues that both Claim 3 and Claim 12 are barred by the statute of limitations.


APPLICABLE LAW:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 3 is based on money loaned, and the supporting documentations suggests that Claim 3 fits within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of September 13, 2012. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 3 is unenforceable.


Claim 12 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of March 2009. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 12 is unenforceable.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13

Furthermore, the Court deems the failure to oppose by PYOD and American Express to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objections, DISALLOWING Claim 3 and Claim 12 in their entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Movant(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11370


Michael Wright


Chapter 13


#10.00 Motion for Order to Disallow Claim #12 of American Express National Bank Also #9

EH       


Docket 35

Tentative Ruling:

8/22/19

BACKGROUND:


On February 22, 2019, Michael Wright ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On May 24, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On March 22, 2019, PYOD LLC ("PYOD") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $6,219.54 ("Claim 3"). On April 5, 2019, American Express National Bank ("American Express") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $10,274.43 ("Claim 12").


On July 15, 2019, Debtor objected to Claim 3 and Claim 12. Amended claim objections were filed on July 17, 2019. Debtor argues that both Claim 3 and Claim 12 are barred by the statute of limitations.


APPLICABLE LAW:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13

11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 3 is based on money loaned, and the supporting documentations suggests that Claim 3 fits within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of September 13, 2012. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 3 is unenforceable.


Claim 12 is based on a credit card debt. This appears to fit within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337. Therefore, the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of March 2009. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 12 is unenforceable.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Wright


Chapter 13

Furthermore, the Court deems the failure to oppose by PYOD and American Express to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objections, DISALLOWING Claim 3 and Claim 12 in their entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Movant(s):

Michael Wright Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13146


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


#11.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 4 by Claimant PYOD LLC Also #12 & #13

EH   


Docket 34

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Movant(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman Fritz J Firman

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13146


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


#12.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 5 by Claimant Specialized Loan Servicing LLC


Also #11 & #13 EH    

Docket 30

Tentative Ruling:

8/22/2019

BACKGROUND:


On April 15, 2019, Mark & Elizabeth Swartz ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 21, 2019, The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as successor Indenture trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association for CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-F ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $157,959.06 ("Claim 5").


On July, 2019, Debtors filed an objection to Claim 5. Debtors argue that the information filed in support of Claim 5 is inadequate pursuant to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and that, as a result, Creditor has failed to meet its burden of proof.


APPLICABLE LAW:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


Local Rule 3007-1(b)(2) provides that a "claim objection must be served on the

11:00 AM

CONT...


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13

claimant at the address disclosed by the claimant in its proof of claim and at such other addresses and upon such parties as may be required by FRBP 7004 and other applicable rules. Here, the claim objection states that it was served at "8749 Lucent Blvd." rather than at the address listed on Claim 5, "8742 Lucent Blvd."


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for proper service on Creditor.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Movant(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman Fritz J Firman

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13146


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


#13.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 7/11/19

Also #11 & #12 EH    

Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13314


Tamra Gillian Rehak


Chapter 13


#14.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 7/11/19

EH    


Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tamra Gillian Rehak Represented By Norma Duenas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13374


Michael Arthur Eidsvoog and Kathyryn Michelle Eidsvoog


Chapter 13


#15.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 7/11/19

EH    


Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Arthur Eidsvoog Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Kathyryn Michelle Eidsvoog Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13514


Michael Ray Sandoval


Chapter 13


#16.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 7/11/19

EH    


Docket 18


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Ray Sandoval Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13651


Juan Manuel Robles


Chapter 13


#17.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juan Manuel Robles Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13691


Alicia M Smith


Chapter 13


#18.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alicia M Smith Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13760


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13


#19.00 CONT Motion for Setting Property Value From: 8/1/19

Also #20 EH   

Docket 18

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

8/1/2019


BACKGROUND


On April 30, 2019, Jesus and Flora Hernandez Flores ("Debtors") filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. On June 5, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to value their 2016 Toyota RAV4 (the "Property"). The Property is currently subject to a

$22,732 lien held by Altura Credit Union ("Creditor"). The motion did not contain any evidence of the Property’s value. On July 12, 2019, Debtors filed a supplemental to their motion, containing a Carmax appraisal of the Property, which establishes the amount for which Carmax would purchase the Property.


Creditor filed an opposition on July 30, 2019. In it, Creditor claims that Debtors’ motion to value the property is in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(9), which does not permit the reduction of a secured claim stemming from a purchase money security interest incurred within a 910-day period prior to the petition date for the purchase of a motor vehicle acquired for a Debtors’ personal use.


DISCUSSION


First, the Court begins by noting that Debtors’ first motion did not contain any evidence to support their claimed valuation of the Property. Instead, Creditor only received 19 days’ notice of such an integral part of Debtors’ motion through the

11:00 AM

CONT...


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13

supplemental filed on July 12, 2019. While not fatal, the Court still finds this to be improper notice of the motion.


As to the merits, one of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


However, a Chapter 13 plan cannot be confirmed with a § 506(a) claim bifurcation under § 1325(a)(5) if the claim being bifurcated is: (1)- a purchase money security interest, (2) incurred for the purchase of a motor vehicle, (3) acquired for the Debtors’ personal use, (4) that was taken out 910 days prior to the Chapter 13 petition. Here, Creditor is the holder of a purchase money security interest for a vehicle acquired for the Debtors’ personal use which was taken out 584 days prior to the petition date, as the retail installment contract was entered into by Debtors on September 23, 2017. As such, claim bifurcation is not available within this case for the Property. Even if it was, Debtors also failed to submit proper evidence of the Property’s value.


Assuming, arguendo, that § 1325(a)(5) did not apply, the Ninth Circuit has not presently established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtors have submitted a Carmax appraisal of the vehicle, which gave an appraisal offer of $12,500. This appears to completely miss the goal of valuation. Value under Morales is meant to establish what a retail merchant would charge when selling the Property, not what a retail merchant would purchase the Property for.

Debtors have provided the purchase price, which will almost certainly be substantially lower than the sale price, cutting against the Creditor’s interests.

11:00 AM

CONT...


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13

TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


SERVICE: PROPER


OPPOSITION: YES


The Court is inclined to DENY Debtors’ motion to value the Property due to it being in contravention of the restrictions on claim bifurcation under § 1325(a)(5).

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

J Jesus Hernandez Flores Represented By Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Flora Hernandez Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

J Jesus Hernandez Flores Represented By Jenny L Doling Jenny L Doling Jenny L Doling

Flora Hernandez Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13760


J Jesus Hernandez Flores and Flora Hernandez


Chapter 13


#20.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

Also #19 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

J Jesus Hernandez Flores Represented By Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Flora Hernandez Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13768


Daniel Ray Love and Fatin Badawi Love


Chapter 13


#21.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Ray Love Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Joint Debtor(s):

Fatin Badawi Love Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13855


Noel Guerrero Avalos and Veronica Cellular De Avalos


Chapter 13


#22.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Noel Guerrero Avalos Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Veronica Cellular De Avalos Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14268


Christopher Monroe and Aysheh Spicer


Chapter 13


#23.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher Monroe Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Aysheh Spicer Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14276


Jacques Vashonne Powers


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jacques Vashonne Powers Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14325


Martin Ontiveros


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14344


Jose G. Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose G. Rodriguez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14363


Oscar Ricardo Chavez


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Oscar Ricardo Chavez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14403


Jacquline Mason McDuffy


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/27/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jacquline Mason McDuffy Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14412


Jesus Antonio Palomares and Claudia Heredia Palomares


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Antonio Palomares Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Claudia Heredia Palomares Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14450


Pedro Lopez


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/10/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pedro Lopez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14472


Briana Farquharson


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/10/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Briana Farquharson Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14557


Martha Rubicela Ochoa


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Martha Rubicela Ochoa Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14560


Raymond Norman Lauzon and Pamela Ann Lauzon


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Raymond Norman Lauzon Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Pamela Ann Lauzon Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14576


Sarah Mace Abbott


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sarah Mace Abbott Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14585


Byron Tal Bagget


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Byron Tal Bagget Represented By William G Cort

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14586


Jose Luis Garcia and Yanira Valdez


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Luis Garcia Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Yanira Valdez Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14623


Erlwin E Williams


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Erlwin E Williams Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14634


William Edward Wall, Jr.


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

William Edward Wall Jr. Represented By Ronald W Ask

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14651


Edward G. Roberts


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edward G. Roberts Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14670


Karla Salvante Altar


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Karla Salvante Altar Represented By Rex Tran

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14679


Martin Garcia Arias


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Martin Garcia Arias Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14684


Ryan Kolakowski


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ryan Kolakowski Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14735


Trinen Arniese Pratt


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Trinen Arniese Pratt Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14759


Andrew Venegas


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Andrew Venegas Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16193


La Toya J. Calvin


Chapter 13


#45.00 Motion for Setting Property Value 2014 Mercedes E350 EH   

Docket 10

Tentative Ruling:

8/22/19

BACKGROUND


On January 13, 2019, Maisha Ghant-Elie ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a 2014 Mercedes E350 (the "Property"). Pursuant to Schedule D, Navy Federal Credit Union ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property. On July 29, 2019, Creditor filed a proof of claim in the amount of $39,746.07, identifying $10,932 as secured by the Property ("Claim 5"). The Court notes, however, that while Creditor filled out the security information in the proof of claim form, Creditor also checked the box stating that the claim was wholly unsecured. As a result, the claim register in this case identifies Claim 5 as an unsecured claim.


On July 19, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to value the Property. Debtor asserts that the Property should be valued at $10,932.


DISCUSSION



One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of

11:00 AM

CONT...


La Toya J. Calvin


Chapter 13

the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).


Presently, the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Kelly Blue Book report identifying the private party value of the Property. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom.


However, as Creditor and Debtor apparently agree that the value of the Property is

$10,932, and because the Court deems Creditor’s non-opposition to be consent to the relief requested, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, valuing the Property at

$10,932, with a resulting general unsecured claim in the amount of $28,814.07


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

La Toya J. Calvin Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Movant(s):


La Toya J. Calvin


Patricia M Ashcraft


Chapter 13

La Toya J. Calvin Represented By Patricia M Ashcraft Patricia M Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16298


Juan Antonio Clement and Karen Lynn Clement


Chapter 13


#46.00 Motion to Avoid Junior Lien with Aspen Properties Group, LLC EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

8/21/2019


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter to allow Creditor adequate time to conduct an appraisal of the subject real property.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Juan Antonio Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Karen Lynn Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Juan Antonio Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Karen Lynn Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-22362


James Lange and Michelle Lange


Chapter 13


#47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 180

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Lange Represented By

Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed

Joint Debtor(s):

Michelle Lange Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-10257


Cecilia Orozco and Sergio Orozco


Chapter 13


#48.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 5/9/19, 7/11/19

EH   


Docket 51


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cecilia Orozco Represented By Majid Safaie Manfred Schroer

Joint Debtor(s):

Sergio Orozco Represented By Majid Safaie Manfred Schroer

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-11151


Jeanne Marie Jackson


Chapter 13


#49.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeanne Marie Jackson Represented By

D Justin Harelik

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-16946


Elliott Howard Blue, Jr and Yvette Blue


Chapter 13


#50.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 89

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elliott Howard Blue Jr Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

Joint Debtor(s):

Yvette Blue Represented By

Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18082


Joseph John Vargas and Lydia Vargas


Chapter 13


#51.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/1/19

EH   


Docket 130


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph John Vargas Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Lydia Vargas Represented By

Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18125


Marc Meisenheimer


Chapter 13


#52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 79


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Marc Meisenheimer Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-19890


Rick Gaeta Carreon


Chapter 13


#53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 117


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rick Gaeta Carreon Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20163


Sandra M. Hankins


Chapter 13


#54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 81

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sandra M. Hankins Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15660


Guillermina Perez


Chapter 13


#55.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 53

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Guillermina Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-16439


Oscar Avila


Chapter 13


#56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 77


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oscar Avila Represented By

Sanaz S Bereliani

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-19890


Katrina Renee McDowell


Chapter 13


#57.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19; 6/27/19

EH   


Docket 57

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/19/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Katrina Renee McDowell Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-20147


Gilbert Richard Enriquez and Lisa Lynn Enriquez


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 57

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gilbert Richard Enriquez Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Joint Debtor(s):

Lisa Lynn Enriquez Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11924


Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule


Chapter 13


#59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 59


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Don Gurule Represented By

Christopher Hewitt

Joint Debtor(s):

Elaine Gurule Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12550


Nicolas E Magana


Chapter 13


#60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 28

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nicolas E Magana Represented By Carey C Pickford

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14467


Jose M. Cortez


Chapter 13


#61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 34

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

8/1/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose M. Cortez Represented By Patricia A Mireles

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14868


Michael J Soriano


Chapter 13


#62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael J Soriano Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15220


Peter Ruiz


Chapter 13


#63.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/1/19

EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Peter Ruiz Represented By

Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15343


Jennifer Isabella Solares


Chapter 13


#64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16178


Eriberto A. Sandoval


Chapter 13


#65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 58


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eriberto A. Sandoval Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16681


Melissa Cheryl Ron


Chapter 13


#66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 31

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 7/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Melissa Cheryl Ron Represented By Nima S Vokshori

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16804


Adam Brian Britt and Kenya Lashawn Britt


Chapter 13


#67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Adam Brian Britt Represented By Scott Kosner

Joint Debtor(s):

Kenya Lashawn Britt Represented By Scott Kosner

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17597


David Meisland


Chapter 13


#68.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/1/19

EH       


Docket 50


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David Meisland Represented By Nima S Vokshori

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-18739


Heather Gibson


Chapter 13


#69.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/11/19

EH       


Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Heather Gibson Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10669


Michael Anthony Delgado, III


Chapter 13


#70.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/1/19

EH       


Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Anthony Delgado III Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11371


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13


#71.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Joint Debtor(s):

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11757


Virginia Ann Bennett


Chapter 13


#72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Virginia Ann Bennett Represented By Lionel E Giron

Crystle Jane Lindsey

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11792


Clifford Leon Parks


Chapter 13


#73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 37


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Clifford Leon Parks Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-18212


Michael Joseph Slowinski


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15470 Legendary Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92555


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 83


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Joseph Slowinski Pro Se

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, National Represented By Sean C Ferry Eric P Enciso

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-15914


Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 1C6RR6GG7HS651216


MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.


From: 7/30/19 EH         

Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

7/30/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Movant(s):

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Represented By

Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-11132


Jose V Arredondo


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5754 Felspar Street, Riverside, CA 92509-4903


MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


From: 5/28/19, 6/25/19, 7/30/19 EH   

Docket 47

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/5/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose V Arredondo Represented By

Benjamin A Yrungaray

Movant(s):

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

Kelsey X Luu Sean C Ferry Gilbert R Yabes

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17575


Terry Neil Gaia and Tamara Marie Devalle-Gaia


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 33657 Emerson Way Unit B AKA 33657 Emerson Way, Temecula, CA 92592


MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Terry Neil Gaia Represented By Edward G Topolski

Joint Debtor(s):

Tamara Marie Devalle-Gaia Represented By Edward G Topolski

Movant(s):

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Terry Neil Gaia and Tamara Marie Devalle-Gaia

Sean C Ferry Theron S Covey Eric P Enciso


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-18230


Ricardo Munoz and Roseann Munoz


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1554 N Helen Ct, Ontario, California 91762


MOVANT: J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP


EH   


Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ricardo Munoz Represented By Michael E Clark

Joint Debtor(s):

Roseann Munoz Represented By Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Represented By

Gilbert R Yabes

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-10456


David Allen Rose, Jr. and Karen Sue Rose


Chapter 13


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 20798 Brana Rd, Riverside, CA 92508


MOVANT: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO., N.A.


EH   


Docket 47

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Allen Rose Jr. Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Karen Sue Rose Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Represented By

Jennifer C Wong Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-11924


Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13343 Chaparral Road, Whitewater, CA 92282


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


From: 6/25/19 EH       

Docket 54

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/1/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

6/25/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of the arrears, as well as negotiations as to an adequate protection order, if needed.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Don Gurule Represented By

Christopher Hewitt

Joint Debtor(s):

Elaine Gurule Represented By Christopher Hewitt

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule


Chapter 13

Nationstar Mortgage LLC D/B/A Represented By

Angie M Marth Darlene C Vigil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-12170


Pamela Ann Harris


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1939 Prince Albert Drive, Riverside, CA 92507


MOVANT: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.


From: 7/16/19, 8/20/19 EH   

Docket 84

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

7/16/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the negotiations for an adequate protection order.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Pamela Ann Harris Represented By Halli B Heston

Movant(s):

Wilmington Trust, NA, successor Represented By

Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Pamela Ann Harris


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-12822


Cynthia Miller


Chapter 13


#9.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15036 Daffodil Circle, Fontana, CA 92336


MOVANT: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 7/16/19 EH       

Docket 62

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

7/16/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of negotiations as to an adequate protection order.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cynthia Miller Represented By Richard L Barrett

Movant(s):

Wilmington Trust, National Represented By Dipika Parmar Jennifer C Wong

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Cynthia Miller


Nancy L Lee


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-14123


Daniel Alvarado Ramirez and Elvia Lena Ramirez


Chapter 13


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 TOYOTA SIENNA


MOVANT: TOYOTA LEASE TRUST


EH   


Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Alvarado Ramirez Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Elvia Lena Ramirez Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

TOYOTA LEASE TRUST Represented By

Erica T Loftis Pacheco

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Daniel Alvarado Ramirez and Elvia Lena Ramirez


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18739


Heather Gibson


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6375 Lime Road, Phelan, CA 92371


MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC


From: 7/30/19 EH       

Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

7/30/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Debtor to apprise the Court of the status of sale efforts, and parties to apprise the Court of the status of arrears.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Heather Gibson Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Movant(s):

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Darlene C Vigil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19368


Salvador Marquez


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11468 Caraway Court, Fontana, CA 92337


MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 6/9/19, 7/30/19 EH   

Docket 29

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

7/9/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001 stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2,3, and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Salvador Marquez Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

Nancy L Lee

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Salvador Marquez


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19956


Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff


Chapter 13


#13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 NISSAN ROGUE, VIN # JN1BJ1CP4JW164907


MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Herman A. Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Monica Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Movant(s):

NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff

Michael D Vanlochem


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20759


Elida Soto


Chapter 13


#14.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13692 Bedford Place, Victorville, CA 92392


MOVANT: NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC


From: 7/30/19 EH       

Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

7/30/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elida Soto Represented By

William G Cort

Movant(s):

NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, Represented By

Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11371


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 8893 Orange Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701


MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


CASE DISMISSED 8/22/19


EH   


Docket 72


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Debtors had a previous bankruptcy case dismissed on November 15, 2018. Therefore, pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), the automatic stay in this CASE, absent order of the Court, was to expire on March 24, 2019. While Debtors did file a motion to continue the automatic stay, that motion, after a continuance, was ultimately denied by the Court. Therefore, the automatic stay expired on March 24, and the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Joint Debtor(s):

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13

U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By

Gilbert R Yabes Dane W Exnowski

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13037


Hong Song and XiaoTao Zhai


Chapter 13


#16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Chevrolet Camaro, VIN: 1G1FB1RX2H0111647


MOVANT: ACAR LEASING LTD


EH   


Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. § 365(p)(1) provides for the automatic termination of the automatic stay with respect to a lease of personal property which is rejected or not timely assumed. Here, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan rejected the lease with Movant. Therefore, the automatic stay has already been terminated, and the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hong Song Represented By

Jonathan J. Lo Michael Y Lo

Joint Debtor(s):

XiaoTao Zhai Represented By Jonathan J. Lo Michael Y Lo

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Hong Song and XiaoTao Zhai


Chapter 13

ACAR Leasing LTD d/b/a GM Represented By Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14344


Jose G. Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13347 Chamiso St, Victorville, CA 92392


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


CASE DISMISSED 8/22/19


EH   


Docket 19


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose G. Rodriguez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Angie M Marth Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15189


Karl Eastin and Sarah Eastin


Chapter 7


#18.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 11 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2019 RAM 1500 VIN 1C6RREBT9KN680138


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Karl Eastin Represented By

Terrence Fantauzzi

Joint Debtor(s):

Sarah Eastin Represented By

Terrence Fantauzzi

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Karl Eastin and Sarah Eastin


Jennifer H Wang


Chapter 7

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15534


Xavier Mayagoitia Ramirez and Ana Janeth Ramirez


Chapter 7


#19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1147 W Grove Street, Rialto, CA 92376


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


Debtors had a previous bankruptcy case dismissed on August 23, 2018. Therefore, pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), and noting that Debtors did not file a motion to continue the automatic stay, the automatic stay in this case terminated on July 25, 2019. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Xavier Mayagoitia Ramirez Represented By

Michael H Colmenares

Joint Debtor(s):

Ana Janeth Ramirez Represented By

Michael H Colmenares

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Nancy L Lee

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Xavier Mayagoitia Ramirez and Ana Janeth Ramirez


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16003


Carlos Garnica, Jr.


Chapter 7


#20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 650 N Teakwood Ave, Rialto, CA 92376


MOVANT: BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC.


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Carlos Garnica Jr. Represented By Andrew Nguyen

Movant(s):

Broker Solutions, Inc. dba New Represented By Nathan F Smith

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16210


Edward Joey Mish, Jr


Chapter 13


#21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 12476 13th St, Yucaipa 92399


MOVANT: EDWARD & WENDY SOUSA, AS TRUSTEES OF THE SOUSA REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST


EH   


Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


As a preliminary note, the Court notes that notice and service of the motion are improper. Local Rule 4001-1(c)(1)(A) requires service to be made on the "debtor and debtor’s attorney (if any)" (emphasis added). Judge Houle’s self-calendaring instructions require telephonic notice to be given to all parties entitled to receive notice. Here, Movant has not given Debtor telephonic notice of the hearing and, therefore, notice is improper. Furthermore, the Court notes that Movant does not appear to have served Debtor with the motion via overnight mail, and, therefore, it is unclear whether Debtor would have received the underlying motion at least five court days prior to the hearing.


On the merits, the Court notes that there are issues with several of the requests made by Movant. First, Movant requests relief from the § 1301(a) co-debtor stay, yet there has not been service on any co-debtor. Second, Movant requests confirmation that no stay is in effect, yet the relevant subsections identified in the motion, § 362(b)(22) and (23), do not appear applicable to this case. Third, Movant requests annulment of the automatic stay to validate the unlawful detainer judgment, yet Movant has not provided a declaration or any detailed evidence in support of its request. The Court notes that Movant was listed in the originally creditor mailing matrix, and it is unclear

11:00 AM

CONT...


Edward Joey Mish, Jr


Chapter 13

why Movant would not have been aware of the bankruptcy for twenty-seven days. For the above reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion without prejudice.

APPEARANCES REQUIRED


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Edward Joey Mish Jr Represented By Matthew D Resnik

Movant(s):

Edward & Wendy Sousa As Trustees Represented By

William E Windham

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16603


Stephanie Jimenez


Chapter 7


#22.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 6781 Dusty Trail Road, Eastvale, CA


MOVANT: YANMING DU


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephanie Jimenez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Yanming Du Represented By

Helen G Long

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16611


Vincent James Carabba


Chapter 13


#23.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: VINCENT CARABBA


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court having reviewed the motion, notice being proper, and good cause appearing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to all creditors.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vincent James Carabba Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Vincent James Carabba Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16791


Robert Joseph Slapp, III


Chapter 13


#24.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 34119 Galleron St., Temecula, CA 92592


MOVANT: ROBERT JOSEPH SLAPP, III


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service: Improper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion on the following two grounds. First, the motion was not served on the affected secured creditor pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004 as required by Judge Houle’s procedures. Second, the Court notes that the evidence provided by Debtor is inadequately detailed, and therefore does not constitute the clear and convincing evidence required to rebut the presumption of bad faith arising under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(aa).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert Joseph Slapp III Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Movant(s):

Robert Joseph Slapp III Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Robert Joseph Slapp, III


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16926


Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam


Chapter 13


#25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 37625 Early Ln., Murrieta, CA 92563


MOVANT: AARON D. WEINFIELD AND SHELITA C. WEINFIELD TRUSTEES OF THE WEINFIELD FAMILY TRUST, DATED DECEMBER 7, 2004


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown. Specifically, Movant has not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate that Debtor’s principal residence is not necessary to an effective reorganization. DENY request for relief from § 1301(a) stay because no co-debtor was served with this motion. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam Pro Se

Movant(s):

Aaron D. Weinfield and Shelita C. Represented By

Scott Andrews

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-15717


AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp.


Chapter 11


#26.00 CONT Post Confirmation Status Conference From: 12/18/18, 4/16/19, 5/28/19, 6/25/19

EH   


Docket 161

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CLOSED 8/15/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

AMJ Plumbing Specialists Corp. Represented By

David Lozano

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#27.00 CONT First Interim Fee Application of Terzian Law Group, A Professional Corporation, Attorney for Debtor and Debtor in Possession for Tamar Terzian, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 7/23/2018 to 6/15/2019, Fee: $57487.50, Expenses:

$3178.12.


From: 7/16/19 EH    

Docket 160

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/29/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

Movant(s):

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:19-13127


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


#28.00 (Jointly Administered - LEAD CASE - 19-13127 MH)

Motion To Compel Assumption Or Rejection Of Defaulted Unexpired Lease Of Personal Property; For Adequate Protection And Maintenance Payments Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. §365(d)(5); And For Relief From Stay In Event Of Rejection Of Lease


EH   


Docket 134


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By

Cheryl A Skigin

11:00 AM

6:17-10724


Bausman and Company Incorporated


Chapter 7


#1.00 Application for Compensation Final Fee Application of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP For Allowance and Payment of Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses as General Debtor-in-Possession Counsel for William A Smelko, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 1/31/2017 to 9/27/2017, Fee:

$116065.7, Expenses: $4052.09. EH   

Docket 196


Tentative Ruling:

Application: $120,117.79 in total, reflecting $116,065.70 in fees and $4,052.09 in costs ($17,750.00 already paid from a retainer, leaving $102,367.79 remaining to be paid).


Opposition: None.


Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


Background


Debtor Bausman and Company, Inc. ("Debtor") filed their voluntary Chapter 11 petition on January 30, 2017. On July 3, 2017, having been unable to reorganize, Debtor filed a motion to voluntarily convert their Chapter 11 case to one under Chapter 7. On September 27, 2017, the Court entered an order converting the case to one under Chapter 7, and appointing a Chapter 7 Trustee.


Debtor filed a motion to employ Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch ("Counsel") as Chapter 11 bankruptcy counsel on February 14, 2017, and the Court approved the motion via order entered on May 9, 2017. Debtor was employed from January 31, 2017 through September 27, 2017, as counsel for Debtor.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Bausman and Company Incorporated


Chapter 7

On June 30, 2017, Counsel filed their first interim application for compensation of fees and expenses for the period of January 31, 2017 through June 26, 2017. The Court approved the interim application via order entered on September 22, 2019, in the reduced amount of $96,565.70 in fees and $3,936.82 in expenses, with permission to draw upon the $17,750 received as a retainer for payment, but nothing else.


On December 1, 2017, the Court entered an order authorizing the employment of Best, Best, and Krieger as counsel for the Chapter 7 trustee.


On December 20, 2017, Counsel filed their second and final application for compensation of fees and expenses, for the period of June 27, 2017 through September 27, 2017. Per stipulation with the Chapter 7 Trustee, Counsel’s fees and expenses were to be treated as a second interim application, and Counsel was to seek final allowance and payment of compensation at the conclusion of the case. However, Counsel was not to be required to refile the application for final compensation with the Court, rather, Counsel was to file a declaration requesting that the application from December 20, 2017 be treated as a final application. The stipulation concerning the treatment of the application was approved via order entered by the Court on January 4, 2019. On February 5, 2019, the Court approved Counsel’s second interim application for compensation of fees and expenses in the reduced amount of $13,675.50 in fees and the full amount of $115.27 in expenses, for a reduced total amount of $13,789.77.


On June 28, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed their notice to professionals to file applications for compensation.


On July 17, 2019, Counsel filed their final application for compensation of fees and expenses for the period between January 31, 2017 and September 27, 2017. The application requests a combined $116,065.70 in final fees and $4,052.09 in final expenses, for a combined final total of $120,117.79. This includes the

$10,045.55 reduction ordered by the Court in the first interim fee application. Of this amount, $102,367,79 remains to be paid, following the application of the

$17,750 retainer towards payment, as originally approved by the Court in its order approving the first application for compensation.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Bausman and Company Incorporated

Counsel is not seeking payment for their requested compensation at this time, rather they are seeking an administrative claim against the Chapter 7 estate in the amount of the approved compensation.


Analysis


Chapter 7


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), the court may award reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services. The court has an independent duty to review the fee application in the absence of objections. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(2). The court "will not indulge in extensive labor and guesswork to justify a fee for an attorney who has not done so himself." In re Taylor, 66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986).


11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. These factors include time spent, rates charged, necessity of the service, reasonableness of the service, expertise of attorney, and comparable market rates.


The Court begins by noting that it has already previously reviewed the fees and expenses requested within this final application when it reviewed the first and second interim fee applications filed by Counsel. The combined total from the two orders approving the interim fee applications in reduced amounts was

$114,292.29, reflecting a combined $110,240.20 in fees and $4,052.09 in expenses. By contrast, here Debtor is requesting a combined total of $120,117.79, reflecting $116,065.70 in combined fees and $4,052.09 in combined expenses.

The discrepancy between the two combined totals, that of the two ordered amounts and that of the final application, is because Counsel included in its request a $5,827.50 reduction in fees ordered by the Court when it approved the second application for compensation. In contrast, Counsel has excluded for its request the $10,045.55 reduction in fees ordered as part of the Court’s approval of the first application for compensation.


The question becomes whether the Court is inclined to change its finding as to the fees requested for the services performed in the period of June 27, 2017, through September 27, 2017. The original reduction was incurred due to the Court’s disinclination to grant fees incurred in Counsel’s defense of its first fee application, for travel time to a hearing on Debtor’s conversion motion which

11:00 AM

CONT...


Bausman and Company Incorporated

would not have been needed had Counsel properly followed the local bankruptcy rules, and for a sale motion which caused the delay in conversion of the case to one under Chapter 7 for two months, but was eventually never filed. Upon a second review of the fees requested, and the services performed, especially those for which the Court originally denied the fees requested, the Court is not inclined to change its original opinion. As such, it is inclined to maintain its $5,827.50 reduction in fees.


As for Counsel’s request for reimbursement of $4,052.09 in expenses, the Court maintains its findings that Counsel properly accounted for its expenses in its original motions, and that those expenses were necessary ad reasonable. As such, the Court is inclined to maintain its original granting of a combined $4,052.09 in expenses in its two orders on Counsel’s interim fee applications.


Chapter 7


The Court notes that Counsel is not requesting payment of their approved compensation at this time, barring final approval of the previous payment made to the firm in the amount of $17,750 from the pre-petition retainer, as approved by the Court in its September 22, 2017, order approving the first interim fee application. Instead, Counsel is requesting authorization to receive a Chapter 11 administrative expense claim. The Court is instead inclined to grant Counsel a Chapter 7 administrative expense claim, against Debtor’s current Chapter 7 estate.


Tentative Ruling:


8/20/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None.


The Court is inclined to GRANT Movant’s final application for compensation and allow fees and expenses in the reduced amount of $110,240.20 in in fees and

$4,052.09 in expenses, for a total in the reduced amount of $114,292.29. GRANT final approval and authorization of the allowance of the previous payments made to Counsel in the amount of $17,750 from the pre-petition retainer to be applied to the total post-petition amounts owed to Counsel. GRANT the request authorizing

11:00 AM

CONT...


Bausman and Company Incorporated

Counsel to receive an allowed Chapter 7 Administrative Expense claim against Debtor’s Chapter 7 estate in the amount the $96,542.29 in total compensation for fees and expenses that remain to be paid.


Chapter 7


APPEARANCES REQUIRED, or, if Movant agrees with the reduction, Movant’s appearance is waived and Movant will be deemed to consent to the tentative ruling.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Bausman and Company Incorporated Represented By

William A Smelko

Movant(s):

Bausman and Company Incorporated Represented By

William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By

Best Best & Krieger Caroline Djang

11:00 AM

6:18-20343


Willie Clay Johnson and Dianna Marie Johnson


Chapter 7


#2.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 35

Tentative Ruling:


ANALYSIS


Upon review of the Trustee’s services, the Court finds that the statutory maximum is a reasonable request in this matter. Trustee has requested $1,316.57 based on a disbursement of $5,665.68. This is both a correct calculation of the compensable funds disbursed, as well as the statutory maximum fees allowed. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Trustee’s request for $1,316.57 in fees.


The Court has reviewed Trustee’s accounting of his expenses in the amount of

$208.05 and finds them reasonable.


TENTATIVE RULING


Date: 8/28/2019 Opposition: None Service: Proper


The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 1,316.57 Trustee Expenses: $ 208.05

11:00 AM

CONT...


Willie Clay Johnson and Dianna Marie Johnson


Chapter 7


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Willie Clay Johnson Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Joint Debtor(s):

Dianna Marie Johnson Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15007


Robert Wayne Young


Chapter 7


#3.00 Motion For Order Compelling Turnover Of Real Property Pursuant To 11 U.S.C.

§ 542(a)


EH   


Docket 19

Tentative Ruling:

MOTION FOR TURNOVER

NO OPPOSITION

BACKGROUND


On June 8, 2019, Robert Young ("Debtor") filed his voluntary Ch. 7 petition. Within Debtor’s schedules, Debtor disclosed his possession of a home at 734 Grassy Meadow Dr., San Jacinto, CA 92825 (the "Property), with a scheduled stated value of

$324,000. Debtor has claimed a $100,000 exemption in the property under Cal. Civ. Code § 704.730. The Property is burdened by scheduled debts totaling $206,681 representing the 1st Mortgage held by Darrington Mortgage in the amount of $180,000 and the 2nd Mortgage held by Novad Management Consulting LLC/HUD in the amount of $55,681.00. There is also a scheduled lien for solar panels in the amount of

$40,000 which is held by Clean Energy Ygrene. None of those parties have yet filed claims in the case.


On August 1, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") filed this motion for turnover of the Property, on the basis of their belief that there may be equity within the Property. Trustee did not file any additional evidence or explanation in support of their motion, besides a statement that they were informed and believed that there was net equity in the estate. In addition, Trustee also declared that Debtor and Debtor’s counsel had been uncooperative in preparing the Property for a potential future sale.


DISCUSSION

11:00 AM

CONT...


Robert Wayne Young


Chapter 7


Trustee filed his motion for turnover under § 542 with the stated intent of selling the Property under § 363(f). The benefit of the Property to the estate is thus the net equity which could be obtained through such a sale. However, the Trustee has not put forward any evidence of net equity in the property, besides a statement that they were informed and believed there was. This appears to be referring to Debtor’s schedules.


Upon review of Debtor’s schedules, it is unclear if net equity exists in the Property at this time. Debtor’s Schedule A lists the value of the Property as $324,000, and his Schedule D lists the combined mortgages burdening the Property as $206,681. His Schedule D also lists a $40,000 lien for solar panels which likely further burden the Property. In addition, Debtor has also claimed a $100,000 exemption pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 704.730 in the equity in the Property in his Schedule C. This adds up to a total of $366,681 in potential encumbrances and claims on the equity of the Property, whose value is currently listed at $324,000.


TENTATIVE RULING


8/28/2019


SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: NONE.

While the Court understands the frustration of the Trustee as to Debtor’s failure to

cooperate with the potential marketing and sale of the Property, the Court is inclined to find that more evidence is needed at this time as to whether there is any net equity in the Property to warrant turnover.

APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert Wayne Young Represented By Cynthia A Dunning

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Robert Wayne Young


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Ryan S Riddles

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Ryan S Riddles

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#4.00 CONT Motion by Chapter 7 Trustee for Order Approving Equity Buy Back Agreement

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 12/5/18, 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19, 6/5/19 Also #5 - #8

EH   


Docket 24

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/18/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#5.00 CONT Application to Employ BHHS Perrie Mundy Realty Group as Real Estate Broker / Agent Declaration of Perrie Mundy in support

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19, 6/5/19 Also #4 - #8

EH   


Docket 27

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/18/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#6.00 CONT Motion for Objection to Claim of Exemptions by Debtor, Julie Lynn Salazar

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 1/16/19, 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19, 6/5/19 Also #4 - #8

EH   


Docket 30

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/18/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#7.00 CONT Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion to Approve Global Compromise Between Estate, Debtor, and Winegardner Masonry

(Only as to Commission)


From: 6/5/19 Also #4 - #8 EH   

Docket 65

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 6/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

11:00 AM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#8.00 CONT Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order: (1) Establishing Conditions and Procedures for Dismissal of Case Under 11 U.S.C. Section 707(a); and (2)

Approving Payment of Creditor Claims and Administrative Fees

(Only as to Commission)


From: 6/5/19 Also #4 - #7 EH   

Docket 67

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/18/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

2:00 PM

6:13-16964


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


#9.00 Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Under F.R.C.P. Rule 26(c) Also #10

EH   


Docket 313

Tentative Ruling:


BACKGROUND


Narinder Sangha ("Defendant") filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on April 18, 2013. Plaintiff Charles Schrader ("Plaintiff’) filed a complaint against Defendant on April 25, 2013, seeking for a determination of nondischargeability of debt due to "willful and malicious" injury under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Plaintiff holds a claim against Defendant based on a $1.4 million state court default judgment against Defendant for defamation related to Plaintiff’s attempt to seek employment with the City of San Jose’s fire department.


The Court entered summary judgment on Plaintiff’s behalf on July 8, 2014, finding that there was no issue of material fact that Defendant had "willfully and maliciously" injured Plaintiff on the grounds of issue preclusion. This was based on a finding that the state court had awarded punitive damages in its judgment against Defendant, and that punitive damages in relation to defamatory conduct required malice in fact under California law The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed the Court’s granting of summary judgment on June 11, 2015, finding that intent to injure could not be inferred from a finding of malice in fact under California law, and that the state court’s failure to give specific grounds for the punitive damages prevented the Court from automatically inferring that the punitive damages were granted due to Defendant’s intent to injure the Plaintiff.


The 9th Circuit of Appeals affirmed the B.A.P. decision on February 24, 2017, and remanded the matter to the Court for a decision on whether the default judgment and the allegations in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint precluded prelitigation of whether the injury caused by Defendant had been "willful and malicious" under § 523(a)(6).

2:00 PM

CONT...


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

On March 15, 2019, the Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, finding that the issue of whether Defendant had "maliciously" injured Plaintiff was precluded by the state court judgment, while also holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment as to whether Defendant had "willfully" injured Plaintiff.


On June 28, 2019, Defendant served a defective subpoena on the City of San Jose. On July 12, 2019, Defendant re-served the subpoena on the City of San Jose, with a compliance date of July 31, 2019.


On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order under F.R.C.P. Rule 26(c) to quash the subpoena on the City of San Jose. Plaintiff argues that the subpoena is overly broad and protected by the deliberative process and official information privileges held by the City of San Jose.


Defendant filed his opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on August 14, 2019. Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not have standing under Rule 26(c) to challenge the subpoena, or to raise the privileges held by the City of San Jose.

Plaintiff filed his reply on August 21, 2019, without response to the issues of standing.


DISCUSSION


F.R.C.P. R. 26 is incorporated into Bankruptcy adversarial proceedings through

F.B.R.P. R. 7026. F.R.C.P. R. 26(c) permits a party or any person from whom discovery is sought to move for a protective order. Plaintiff seeks a protective order to quash a subpoena issued to the City of San Jose. The City of San Jose has not moved to oppose the subpoena themselves. As he is not the person from whom discovery is sought, Plaintiff lacks standing under F.R.C.P. R. 26(c) to move for a protective order. See R. Prasad Indus. V. Flat Irons Envtl. Solutions Corp. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84193 at *24-25 (D. Ariz. 2014) (holding that only parties from whom discovery is sought can file a motion under F.R.C.P. 26(c) for a protective order). In addition, Plaintiff lacks standing to raise privileges on behalf of another party who has not chosen to raise them themselves.


TENTATIVE RULING


8/28/2019

2:00 PM

CONT...


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: YES

THE COURT IS INCLINED TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER F.R.C.P. R. 26(C).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

Defendant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Donald Reid Charity J Manee

Movant(s):

Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-16964


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


#10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:13-ap-01171. Complaint by Charles Edward Schrader against Narinder Sangha . willful and malicious injury))


From: 4/17/19, 5/22/19 Also #9

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

Defendant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Donald Reid Charity J Manee

Plaintiff(s):

Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01308 Cisneros v. BWI CONSULTING, LLC et al


#11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01308. Complaint by

A. Cisneros against BWI CONSULTING, LLC, Black and White, Inc., BLACK AND WHITE BILLING COMPANY, BLACK AND WHITE INK, MEHRAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. (Charge To Estate $350). for Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 1/13/16, 3/23/16, 5/25/16, 7/27/16, 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 5/3/17, 9/13/17, 12/13/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 6/11/18, 8/22/18, 11/28/18, 2/27/19,

5/29/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

BWI CONSULTING, LLC Pro Se

Black and White, Inc. Pro Se

BLACK AND WHITE BILLING Pro Se

BLACK AND WHITE INK Pro Se

MEHRAN DEVELOPMENT Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

A. Cisneros Represented By

D Edward Hays Chad V Haes

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01303 Cisneros v. AMERICAN EXPRESS


#12.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01303. Complaint by

A. Cisneros against AMERICAN EXPRESS. (Charge To Estate $350). For Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 12/30/15, 1/13/16, 3/23/16, 5/25/16, 6/29/16, 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 5/3/17 9/13/17, 12/13/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 6/11/18, 8/22/18, 11/28/18, 2/27/19,

5/29/19


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11/20/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

AMERICAN EXPRESS Represented By Robert S Lampl Chad V Haes

Plaintiff(s):

A. Cisneros Represented By

D Edward Hays Chad V Haes

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


#13.00 Pre-Trial Conference RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01199.

Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


EH   


Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:18-17663


Stephen Richard Morales


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01242 Forniss et al v. Morales et al


#14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01242. Complaint by Steven John Forniss against Stephan Richard Morales, Diane Forniss Morales, Todd Turoci. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Firman, Fritz)


From: 3/6/19, 3/13/19, 5/22/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephen Richard Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Stephan Richard Morales Pro Se

Diane Forniss Morales Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Diane Forniss Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Stephen Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

Alfonso Forniss Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Stephen Richard Morales


Fritz J Firman


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-12440


Paul Pound


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01147 Lloyd v. Pound


#15.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Complaint by April Lloyd against Paul M Pound. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud, 67 - Dischargeability - 523(a) (4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury


From: 9/5/18, 11/14/18, 12/5/18, 1/16/19, 2/6/19, 3/27/19, 5/29/19


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 7/17/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Paul Pound Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Paul M Pound Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

April Lloyd Represented By

Chane Buck

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01080 United States Trustee for the Central District of v. Bastorous et al


#16.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01080. Complaint by United States Trustee for the Central District of California, Region 16 against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. (Fee Not Required). with adversary cover sheet Nature of Suit: (41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e))) (Green, Everett)


From: 7/17/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

United States Trustee for the Central Represented By

Everett L Green

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01114 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. The Blue Law Group, Inc, a


#17.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01114. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against The Blue Law Group, Inc, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


From: 7/10/18, 2/27/19, 6/12/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

The Blue Law Group, Inc, a Represented By Michael K Blue

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:16-01225 Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC v. Allied Injury Management,


#18.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC against Allied Injury Management, Inc., John C. Larson. 02 - Other e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy

HOLDING DATE


From: 11/1/16, 12/6/16, 1/31/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 10/3/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19,

4/10/19, 6/12/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

John C. Larson Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Cambridge Medical Funding Group Represented By

Kenneth Hennesay

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:16-01279 Allied Injury Management, Inc. v. One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group


#19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01279. Complaint by Allied Injury Management, Inc. against One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group & Therapy, Inc., One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group, Inc., Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Group, Inc.. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; and (3) Unjust Enrichment Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 1/24/17, 3/7/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Represented By

Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Plaintiff(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01109 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Titanium Resource Company,


#20.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 - preference,13 Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a Represented By

Alan W Forsley

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01110 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Larson, D.C., an individual


#21.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against John Larson, D.C., an individual. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers, Avoidance of Improper Distributions, and Unjust Enrichment and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13- Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

John Larson, D.C., an individual Represented By

Alan W Forsley

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


#22.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01111. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Werth, Steven)


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


Also #23 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Mark S Horoupian


Chapter 11

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


#23.00 CONT Status Conference RE: 3rd Party Complaint [4] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, and Third-Party Claim Against John C. Larson, Third-Party Complaint by American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express against John C. Larson


From: 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


Also #22 EH   

Docket 4


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:18-01113 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Netreva, Inc., a California


#24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01113. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Netreva, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Defendant(s):

Netreva, Inc., a California Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

Plaintiff(s):

David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

2:00 PM

CONT...


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11


#25.00 CONT First Omnibus Objection of Debtor-In-Possession Allied Injury Management, Inc. Seeking Disallowance of Certain Proofs of Claim (Holding Date)


From: 11/8/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 3/7/17,4/4/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


Also #26 EH   

Docket 83


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Movant(s):

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-14273


Allied Injury Management, Inc.


Chapter 11


#26.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 6/7/16, 8/30/16, 9/14/16, 10/20/16, 10/25/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19


Also #25 EH   

Docket 7


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

Trustee(s):

David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

2:00 PM

6:16-16720


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


#27.00 Motion In Limine by defendants Real Time Resolutions, Inc and The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007- D


Also #28 EH   

Docket 184

Tentative Ruling:

MOTION IN LIMINE FOR RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

8/28/2019

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Luevina Henry ("Plaintiff") filed her Chapter 13 petition on July 28, 2016. Plaintiff filed her adversarial proceeding to determine dischargeability of debt, for violation of the stay, and for violation of constitutional rights on August 25, 2017. Her complaint stems from Real Time Resolution’s ("RTR") claim filed on September 26, 2016. It originally named 11 different parties, of which all but three have been dismissed: RTR, Bank of NY Mellon (the original lien holder, who used RTR as a loan servicing agent) ("Mellon"), and "Tavares" (allegedly Deputy Tavares of Riverside County). The dismissed parties were dismissed without leave to amend the complaint.

Plaintiff has twice attempted to disallow/object to the claim. The first motion was filed on January 9, 2017, and the second on July 7, 2017. Both motions were repeatedly continued until August 28, 2017, where they were placed off calendar by Judge Jury due to lack of evidence.

2:00 PM

CONT...

Luevina Henry

Chapter 13


Defendants Johnny Baker and Jim Husen (Plaintiff’s ex-husband and his attorney) were ordered dismissed from the case on October 20, 2017. Defendant Sandy Garza was ordered dismissed on October 27, 2017. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Baker and Husen to the 9th Circuit B.A.P., which confusingly denied the appeal of the dismissal of Sandy Garza on February 21, 2018 as interlocutory.


An order to dismiss Plaintiff’s underlying Chapter 13 case was entered on July 25, 2018. The final report and account was filed by Trustee on September 17, 2018.


On May 23, 2019, the adversarial complaint was set for a pre-trial hearing on August 28, 2019.


Plaintiff filed her pre-trial statement on August 7, 2019, as well as her list of exhibits. On August 21, 2019, RTR and Mellon filed their pre-trial statement with their own exhibits. They also filed this motion in limine for exclusion of evidence.


RTR and Mellon argue that Plaintiff has failed to submit admissible evidence as part of her pre-trial statement, with most of the facts submitted being allegedly editorial comments on transcribed hearings and final rulings. They appear to request two different things: in the introduction to their motion they request that that the Court exclude the allegedly inadmissible evidence, but their conclusion requests that the Court set a pre-trial hearing date to determine the admissibility of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff.


DISCUSSION


The Court finds itself a bit confused with what relief is actually being requested here by RTR and Mellon. In their introduction to the motion RTR and Mellon state that they "hereby move for exclusion of purported evidence from Plaintiff," and the body of their memorandum is an argument as to why the evidence submitted by Plaintiff is allegedly inadmissible. However, their conclusion requests that the Court exercise its discretion and hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether Plaintiff has submitted any admissible evidence to support her allegations. Considering that Plaintiff filed a motion to purportedly exclude evidence, and then set it for a hearing, it would appear that Plaintiff is receiving such a hearing on its chosen hearing date of August 28, 2019. The Court is thus inclined to treat this motion as a motion in limine to exclude the evidence submitted by Plaintiff in their pre-trial statement.


The Court finds that the notice for this motion is clearly insufficient. RTR and Mellon filed their motion in limine on August 21, 2019, and chose a hearing date of August 28, 2019. LBR 9013-1(d)(2) states that motions must be filed and served not less than

2:00 PM

CONT...


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

21 days prior to the hearing on the motion, barring an application for an emergency or shortened notice hearing. RTR and Mellon have not made such an application. The Court is inclined to find that this deficiency in the notice of the motion is fatal.

Tentative Ruling:

8/28/2019

Service: Improper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to DENY, without prejudice, RTR and Mellon’s in limine motion for exclusion of evidence. Movants may refile the motion on regular notice.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

Tavares Pro Se

Movant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker

2:00 PM

CONT...


Luevina Henry


James F Lewin


Chapter 13

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker Renee M Parker James F Lewin James F Lewin

Plaintiff(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-16720


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


#28.00 Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01187. Complaint fld

8-25-17 - Dischargeability, willful and malicious injury, validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property, injunctive relief


Also #27 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

Tavares Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-29922


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


#29.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment

(Holding Date)


From: 12/2/15, 2/17/16, 3/2/16, 3/16/16, 4/27/16, 9/21/16, 12/14/16, 6/21/17, 1/24/18, 1/31/18, 5/30/18, 10/10/18, 2/27/19


Also #30 EH   

Docket 62


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Movant(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Plaintiff(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-29922


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


#30.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:14-ap-01070. Complaint by Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom, Eisenberg Law Firm, APC against Nancy Ann Howell. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 5/14/14, 7/2/14, 12/10/14, 3/18/15, 4/22/15, 5/20/15, 7/22/15, 10/28/15, 12/2/15, 2/17/16, 3/2/16, 3/16/16, 4/27/16, 9/21/16, 12/14/16, 6/21/17, 1/24/18,

1/31/18, 5/30/18, 10/10/18, 2/27/19


Also #29 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

11:00 AM

6:16-11653


Micheal Wayne Turner and Vickie Taylor Turner


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Insurance proceeds


MOVANT: DAIMLER TRUST


EH   


Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

9/3/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 8.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Micheal Wayne Turner Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Joint Debtor(s):

Vickie Taylor Turner Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Movant(s):

Daimler Trust Represented By

Sheryl K Ith Jennifer H Wang

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Micheal Wayne Turner and Vickie Taylor Turner


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-15914


Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 1C6RR6GG7HS651216


MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.


From: 7/30/19, 8/27/19 EH         

Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

7/30/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Movant(s):

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Represented By

Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-20659


Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2767 Libra Dr., Riverside, California 92503-6018


MOVANT: NEWREZ LLC


From: 8/20/19 EH   

Docket 63

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

8/20/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the cure of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Romy Abalunan Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadine Nieves Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


Chapter 13

NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Represented By

Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-13923


Suzanne Berry


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11242 Sweetwater Drive, Riverside, California 92505


MOVANT: CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY


EH   


Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

9/3/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Suzanne Berry Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Movant(s):

Champion Mortgage Company Represented By Ashlee Fogle Sean C Ferry

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-15033


Victor Portillo


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6455 Jones Avenue, Riverside, CA 92505


MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


EH   


Docket 49


Tentative Ruling:

9/3/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Victor Portillo Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

Movant(s):

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

Mark S Krause

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13174


Daniel Benjamin Verwers


Chapter 7


#6.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: Plasma table and equipment


MOVANT: CIT BANK, N.A.


From: 8/20/19 EH   

Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

Tentative Ruling:

8/20/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


Movant to address whether relief from stay is appropriate where parties have subsequently entered into a reaffirmation agreement filed on July 25, 2019.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

CIT Bank, N.A. Represented By

Raffi Khatchadourian

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Daniel Benjamin Verwers


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15736


Virginia Saavedra


Chapter 7


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F5 3HA0 07498


MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

9/3/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Virginia Saavedra Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Movant(s):

HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16121


Richard Bonilla Mercado


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2007 Shockwave 28 (Deckboat) Vin SKGDB6891607


MOVANT: SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 16


Tentative Ruling:

9/3/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) because the body of the motion does not establish grounds for the relief requested. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard Bonilla Mercado Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Movant(s):

SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Richard Bonilla Mercado


Chapter 7

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16490


Jesus Gutierrez Ruiz and Guadalupe Ruiz De Ruiz


Chapter 7


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F3 9HA1 86127


MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

9/3/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Gutierrez Ruiz Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Joint Debtor(s):

Guadalupe Ruiz De Ruiz Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Movant(s):

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jesus Gutierrez Ruiz and Guadalupe Ruiz De Ruiz

Vincent V Frounjian


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-12807


G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


Chapter 11


#10.00 CONT Application for Compensation for Michael Jones, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 10/23/2018 to 3/26/2019, Fee: $35050, Expenses: $251.80


From: 8/20/19 EH   

Docket 183


Tentative Ruling:

Application: $35,050.00 in fees and $251.80 in expenses, as well as $54,450.00 in fees previously approved by the Court on November 27, 2018, but for which no order was lodged by Applicant, for a combined request of $89,500 in fees and $251.80, totaling $89,751.80 ($79,151.80 remaining to be paid).


Opposition: No.


Analysis: 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) (2005) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation.


Background


On March 27, 2018, G Hurtado Construction, Inc. ("Debtor") filed its petition for chapter 11 relief. The bankruptcy was precipitated by a wage and hour lawsuit brought by two and possibly more former employees. On April 25, 2018, the Court approved the employment application of M. Jones & Associates, P.C. ("Applicant") to serve as counsel to Debtor. Debtor’s initial disclosure statement required amendment following the Court’s allowance of late-filed claims. The First Amended DS and Plan were filed in October 2018.


On October 22, 2018, the Applicant filed the first interim fee application seeking allowance of $54,450 in fees and $0 in expenses for the period of March 27, 2018, through and including October 22, 2018. Applicant also stated that it was in possession of $10,600 of funds from the Debtor in their trust account. No

2:00 PM

CONT...


G Hurtado Construction, Inc.

opposition was filed. On November 27, 2018, the Court granted the interim fee application in the amount of $43,560, based on an 80% allowance and a 20% holdback for final approval, on the condition that Applicant file a client declaration or explanation in regard to their application, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(1)(J). However, Applicant never lodged an order as to their fee application, despite the Court granting their request.


Chapter 11


On December 3, 2018, Debtor filed an adversarial complaint objecting to the claim of Juan Catano and Faustino Magana, and, in the alternative, requesting indemnification from Donahoo & Associates, P.C. On June 18, 2019, parties in the adversarial proceeding filed a stipulation requesting that the Court close the adversarial proceeding until the arbitration proceeding between the parties was resolved. On June 24, 2019, the Court entered an order continuing the status conference on the adversarial proceeding to January 15, 2020, with leave to parties to stipulate to advancing the conference if needed.


Debtor filed their second amended plan and disclosure statement on December 27, 2018. They filed a third amended plan and disclosure statement on March 7, 2019. The third amended plan was confirmed via order entered on April 5, 2019. The third amended plan provides a 102% dividend to the general unsecured creditors. The third amended plan was confirmed via order entered by the Court on April 5, 2019.


On July 22, 2019, Applicant filed their second, and final, application for compensation, seeking allowance of both $35,050.00 in fees and $251.80 in expenses for services performed from the period of October 23, 2018 through the confirmation of the plan at the hearing on March 26, 2019, as well as allowance of the $54,450 in fees and $0 in expenses which was originally approved by the Court on November 27, 2018, but for which no order was lodged. No opposition was filed against Applicant’s second fee application. However, Applicant once again failed to file a client declaration or explanation in regard to their explanation, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(1)(J).


Analysis

2:00 PM

CONT...


G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


Chapter 11

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), the court may award reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services. The court has an independent duty to review the fee application in the absence of objections. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(2). The court "will not indulge in extensive labor and guesswork to justify a fee for an attorney who has not done so himself." In re Taylor, 66 B.R. 390 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1986).


11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3) provides factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of requested compensation. These factors include time spent, rates charged, necessity of the service, reasonableness of the service, expertise of attorney, and comparable market rates.


Upon review of Applicant’s final fee application, the billing records, and the work performed, the Court is inclined to find that Applicant’s requested compensation is generally reasonable. In particular, the Court takes note of the successful resolution of Applicant’s Chapter 11 case, with a confirmed 100% plan of reorganization and the successful litigation of several contested claims. While there is a remaining adversarial proceeding open in the case, the Court notes that parties have requested that it close that proceeding until arbitration has concluded. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Applicant’s combined request of $89,500 in fees.


Upon review of Counsel’s request for $251.80 in expenses, the Court is inclined to find that Counsel has properly accounted for their expenses, and that the expenses themselves are reasonable. As such, the Court is inclined to grant Counsel’s request for $251.80 in expenses. As the previous interim application requested $0 in expenses, the Court does not need to approve a combined request here regarding expenses.


However, Applicant has once again failed to comply with Local Rule 2016-1(a)(1) (J). It requires a separately filed declaration from the client, or in the alternative, if the client refuses to provide such declaration, Applicant’s own declaration describing steps taken to obtain the client’s declaration. Previously, Debtor filed such a declaration after the hearing on November 27, 2018. As such, the Court will repeat its prior decision from the first interim application, and condition the order authorizing payment of the approved combined fees and expenses on the filing of a declaration or explanation from the Debtor, as required by LBR

2:00 PM

CONT...


G Hurtado Construction, Inc.

2016-1(a)(1)(J).


Tentative Ruling:


Chapter 11


August 20, 2019


Service: Proper Opposition: No.


The Court is inclined to GRANT Applicant’s application for compensation for fees and expenses in the combined amount of $89,500 in fees and $251.80 in expenses, for a total amount of $89,751.80 ($79,151.80 remaining to be paid). However, the entering of Applicant’s lodged order for compensation will be conditioned on the filing of a declaration, or explanation as to why no declaration is forthcoming, as required by LBR 2016-1(a)(1)(J), as well as the lodgment of an order approving the first interim fee application.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

Movant(s):

G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

11:00 AM

6:18-20646


John M Makowski and Nancy M Makowski


Chapter 7


#1.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case and vacate discharge if previously entered as to Nancy Makowski


EH   


Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

9/4/19

BACKGROUND


On December 21, 2018, John & Nancy Makowski (collectively "Debtors"; individually, "John" and "Nancy") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. A meeting of creditors was scheduled for January 22, 2019. At the first meeting of creditors, John appeared and was examined by Trustee. Nancy, however, did not appear, and the meeting of creditors was continued. Nancy also failed to appear at the second and third meeting of creditors.


On April 1, 2019, Debtors received a discharge. On April 10, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to vacate Nancy’s discharge and dismiss her case. Trustee originally filed the motion on negative notice, however, the Court requested that the matter be set for hearing.


DISCUSSION



  1. Dismissal

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    John M Makowski and Nancy M Makowski


    Chapter 7


    It is not exactly clear what legal basis Trustee is relying upon to justify dismissal of Nancy’s bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 707(a)(1) states:


    1. The court may dismiss a case under this chapter only after notice and a hearing and only for cause, including –

      1. Unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors


        Here, Debtor has repeatedly failed to appear at the meeting of creditors. This constitutes unreasonable delay that is prejudicial to creditors, thus warranting dismissal.


  2. Vacation of Discharge


Here, where dismissal of the case is appropriate, logic dictates that a prerequisite to such dismissal is a vacation of the discharge. The standard approach when a trustee has not been able to determine whether an objection to discharge is warranted (by the applicable deadline) is for the Trustee to file a motion requesting an extension of that deadline pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(b).


Trustee did not file such an extension here. Therefore, instead of filing an objection to discharge, Trustee would need to revoke the discharge already entered.


A request to revoke a discharge requires an adversary proceeding pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7001(4). See In re Lokay, 269 B.R. 132, 138 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2001)

("To begin with, a proceeding to revoke a discharge must be brought as an adversary action."); In re Barr, 183 B.R. 531, 536 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995) ("Discharge can be

11:00 AM

CONT...


John M Makowski and Nancy M Makowski


Chapter 7

revoked only by way of an Adversary proceeding brought pursuant to FED. R. BANKR.

P. Rule 7001(4) and U.S.C. § 727(d)."); see also 10 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 7001.01 (16th ed. 2018) ("Failure to commence an adversary proceeding when seeking the relief of the kind listed in Rule 7001 has resulted in denial of the motion or dismissal of the proceeding."). While, in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to waive the requirement of an adversary proceeding, those cases fall into two categories – absence of prejudice to the affected parties or explicit or implicit waiver of the requirement. See id. Here, when Debtors have not responded to the motion, the waiver of a material service requirement would result in the denial of due process to Nancy.


Additionally, on the merits, Trustee’s motion contains no legal analysis and does not cite any applicable legal provision which could provide a basis to revoke Nancy’s discharge. See generally In re Rodwell, 280 B.R. 100, 102 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2002) ("It is well-established that a bankruptcy court may revoke a debtor’s discharge only on the grounds specifically enumerated in Section 727(d). Since the trustee has not proven, nor even alleged, that the debtors’ failure to cooperate falls within the scope of Section 727(d), this court must deny the trustee’s motion for revocation of discharge.").


Finally, the Court notes that the docket in this case reflects two events that are explicitly or implicitly incompatible with Trustee’s request. First, the Court notes that Trustee filed a notice of no assets on June 3, 2019. It is unclear how Trustee could have reached such a conclusion and fully administered the estate if it was believed that further information from Nancy was necessary. Additionally, the Court notes that the docket reflects that two meeting of creditors were held – it is unclear why there is no entry for the third meeting of creditors – and one event states "Non appearance by Ms. Makowski" while the other states "Appearance for Mrs. Makowski."


Because Trustee’s request to dismiss Nancy’s case would appear to be conditioned on the revocation of Nancy’s discharge, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion in its entirety.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


John M Makowski and Nancy M Makowski

Party Information


Chapter 7

John M Makowski Represented By Scott R Burton Sean C Ferry

Joint Debtor(s):

Nancy M Makowski Represented By Scott R Burton

Movant(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17041


Robert Allen Chertow and Anneke Eleanora Chertow


Chapter 7


#2.00 Motion to appoint Anneke Eleanora Chertow as Next Friend; to excuse Robert Allen Chertow from Pre-Petition Counseling, Post-Petition Credit Education, Attendance at 341(a) Hearings and from attending all of the court proceedings during the course of the case; and excusing him from signing documents, authorizing Co-Debtor to sign documents on his behalf and do all things required of him during the case


EH   


Docket 5

Tentative Ruling:

9/4/19

BACKGROUND


On August 12, 2019, Robert & Anneke Chertow (collectively, "Debtors"; individually, "Robert" and "Anneke") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition.


On the petition date, Debtors filed a motion to appoint Anneke as next friend to Robert. The motion also seeks authorization for Robert to be excused from (1) the pre-petition credit counseling and post-petition credit educations courses; (2) personally signing required documents; (3) the meeting of creditors and any court proceedings.


In support of the motion, Debtors filed a declaration of Anneke which states that Robert has Alzheimer’s and lives in a home care facility in Cathedral City. Attached to the declarations, Debtors have submitted a brief doctor’s note which states that Robert has been diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia and "is unable to understand the

11:00 AM

CONT...


Robert Allen Chertow and Anneke Eleanora Chertow


Chapter 7

bankruptcy proceedings" as well as a durable power of attorney executed on April 30, 2019. The Court notes that notice and service are proper, and that the motion was separately served on Robert.


DISCUSSION


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 1004.1 allows "a representative, including a general guardian, committee, conservator, or similar fiduciary," to file a voluntary petition on behalf of an incompetent person.

The rule further provides that:

[a]n infant or incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may file a voluntary petition by next friend or guardian ad litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person who is a debtor and is not otherwise represented or shall make any other order to protect the infant or incompetent debtor.


Rule 1004.1 is patterned after FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 17(c), which applies to adversary proceedings pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7017. That rule provides that an incompetent person may sue "by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem" if the incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative, and provides that "[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action."


Cases interpreting Rule 17(c) look to the law of the state in which the subject is domiciled and follow the state's incompetency laws." In re Burchell, 2014 WL 1304635, at *1 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2014)(internal citations omitted). This court shall thus look to the California Probate Code’s § 811 which outlines the possible bases for a determination that a person is of unsound mind or lacks capacity to make a decision or do a certain act, including for example, incapacity to contract or to execute wills or trusts.


California law requires evidence of specific deficits and a link between the identified deficits and the acts that the allegedly incompetent person would otherwise have capacity to perform. The types of deficiencies are outlined in § 811 as follows:

  1. Alertness and attention, including, but not limited to, the following:

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Robert Allen Chertow and Anneke Eleanora Chertow

    1. Level of arousal or consciousness.

    2. Orientation to time, place, person, and situation.

    3. Ability to attend and concentrate.

  2. Information processing, including, but not limited to, the following:

    1. Short- and long-term memory, including immediate recall.

    2. Ability to understand or communicate with others, either verbally or otherwise.

    3. Recognition of familiar objects and familiar persons.

    4. Ability to understand and appreciate quantities.

    5. Ability to reason using abstract concepts.


      Chapter 7

    6. Ability to plan, organize, and carry out actions in one's own rational self-interest.

    7. Ability to reason logically.

  3. Thought processes. Deficits in these functions may be demonstrated by the presence of the following:

    1. Severely disorganized thinking.

    2. Hallucinations.

    3. Delusions.

    4. Uncontrollable, repetitive, or intrusive thoughts.

  4. Ability to modulate mood and affect. Deficits in this ability may be demonstrated by the presence of a pervasive and persistent or recurrent state of euphoria, anger, anxiety, fear, panic, depression, hopelessness or despair, helplessness, apathy or indifference, that is inappropriate in degree to the individual's circumstances.


Here, while the evidence submitted by Debtors is not detailed and extensive, the Court concludes that that the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s dementia, the doctor’s opinion that Robert cannot understand the proceedings, and the durable power of attorney which was executed approximately three months prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, taken together, support a finding that Robert is not competent to participate in these proceedings and that the appointment of a next friend is appropriate.


Furthermore, given that the Court finds that the appointment of Anneke as next friend is appropriate pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 1004.1, the Court also concludes that it is appropriate to classify Robert as mentally impaired pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(4), and that, as a result, it is appropriate to waive the prepetition and postpetition credit courses pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(4) and 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) (11).

11:00 AM

CONT...


Robert Allen Chertow and Anneke Eleanora Chertow


Chapter 7


Finally, the Court notes it deems failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert Allen Chertow Represented By

H. Christopher Heritage

Joint Debtor(s):

Anneke Eleanora Chertow Represented By

H. Christopher Heritage

Movant(s):

Robert Allen Chertow Represented By

H. Christopher Heritage

H. Christopher Heritage

Anneke Eleanora Chertow Represented By

H. Christopher Heritage

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01248 Revere Financial Corporation, a California corpora v. Roger, MD


#3.00 Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative For Partial Summary Judgment


EH   


Docket 147

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 9/11/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Movant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation, a Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Jerry Wang Represented By

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Anthony J Napolitano


Chapter 7

A. Cisneros Represented By

Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:15-14230


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01213 Pringle v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chas


#4.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01213. Complaint by John Pringle against JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, National Association. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) From: 1/9/19, 3/13/19, 6/5/19

EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11/6/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

Defendant(s):

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

Christopher O Rivas

Chase Bank USA, National Represented By Christopher O Rivas

Plaintiff(s):

John Pringle Represented By

Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

2:00 PM

CONT...


Home Security Stores, Inc.


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:13-30133


Nabeel Slaieh


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01081 Albrecht v. Slaieh


#5.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Also #6

EH   


Docket 188

Tentative Ruling:

9/4/2019

BACKGROUND


On December 18, 2013, Nabeel Slaieh ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition.


On March 24, 2014, Jon Albrecht ("Plaintiff") filed a non-dischargeability complaint against Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). After dismissal of the first complaint, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2014. On November 7, 2014, Defendant filed his answer.


On February 23, 2016, the Court dismissed the action for non-prosecution. On June 17, 2016, the Court vacated the order dismissing the case and sanctioned Plaintiff.


On October 25, 2016, the United States Trustee obtained a judgment denying Defendant a discharge in adversary proceeding 6:14-ap-01224-MH. Defendant

2:00 PM

CONT...


Nabeel Slaieh


Chapter 7

subsequently appealed the judgment. On September 11, 2017, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed the appeal.


On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. This motion was ultimately denied by the Court in a memorandum decision entered March 19, 2019. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this adversary proceeding. The last paragraph of page 3 of docket number 188 states the following:


Since the Final Judgment in the U.S. Trustee’s Action denied Debtor/Defendant a discharge in his underlying bankruptcy, Case No. 6:13-bk-30133-MH, the claim in Plaintiff’s FAC seeking denial of discharge of the particular debt at issue therein is now moot and should be dismissed without prejudice. Because the Defendant’s discharge has already been denied, there is no need to further prosecute Plaintiff’s FAC. And because of the lack of prejudice to Defendant, the dismissal should be without prejudice.


DISCUSSION



FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 41(a)(2), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7041, states, in pertinent part: "Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." "In deciding whether to grant a voluntary dismissal, a trial court must consider whether the defendant will suffer legal prejudice as a result of the court’s dismissal." In re Lowenschuss, 67 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 1976) ("We follow the traditional principle that dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will suffer some plain prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.") (emphasis in original)).


Here, Defendant has not opposed the motion, and no evidence has been presented to the Court which would indicate that Defendant is or could possibly be prejudiced by

2:00 PM

CONT...


Nabeel Slaieh


Chapter 7

the dismissal of this action. Furthermore, the Court notes that while Plaintiff has requested that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice, the statute of limitations under FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4007(c) for adversary proceedings brought pursuant to 11

U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) would essentially render dismissal of this action with prejudice. As a result, it is unclear why Plaintiff has requested that the action be dismissed without prejudice.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, dismissing the action.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nabeel Slaieh Represented By

George A Saba - INACTIVE -

Defendant(s):

Nabeel Slaieh Represented By Stephen B Mashney Bruce A Boice

Movant(s):

W E Jon Albrecht Represented By William L Miltner Robert C Harvey

Plaintiff(s):

W E Jon Albrecht Represented By William L Miltner Robert C Harvey

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Nabeel Slaieh


Chapter 7

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By

D Edward Hays David Wood Matthew Grimshaw

2:00 PM

6:13-30133


Nabeel Slaieh


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01081 Albrecht v. Slaieh


#6.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:14-ap-01081. Complaint by

W.E. Jon Albrecht against Nabeel Slaieh. willful and malicious injury)) From: 4/17/19, 5/29/19, 7/31/19

Also #5 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nabeel Slaieh Represented By

George A Saba - INACTIVE -

Defendant(s):

Nabeel Slaieh Represented By Stephen B Mashney Bruce A Boice

Plaintiff(s):

W E Jon Albrecht Represented By William L Miltner Robert C Harvey

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Represented By

D Edward Hays David Wood

2:00 PM

CONT...


Nabeel Slaieh


Matthew Grimshaw


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:19-17537


Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


Chapter 11


#7.00 Emergency Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Authorization to use Cash Collateral EH       

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

11:00 AM

6:16-10257


Cecilia Orozco and Sergio Orozco


Chapter 13


#1.00 Motion For Sanctions/Disgorgement EH   

Docket 86


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cecilia Orozco Represented By Majid Safaie Manfred Schroer

Joint Debtor(s):

Sergio Orozco Represented By Majid Safaie Manfred Schroer

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-15668


Roger C Jefferson


Chapter 13


#2.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


EH   


Docket 126


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Roger C Jefferson Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Roger C Jefferson Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13796


Charles Anthony Anunciation and Lisa Rhea Anunciation


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim No 3-1 by Claimant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. As Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust


From: 8/1/19 EH       

Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Charles Anthony Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Joint Debtor(s):

Lisa Rhea Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Movant(s):

Charles Anthony Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Lisa Rhea Anunciation Represented By Jeffrey B Smith

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18724


Marie Lynne Trejo


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion to Disallow Claims #10 Employment Development Department EH   

Docket 29

Tentative Ruling:

9/5/19

BACKGROUND:


On October 15, 2018, Marie Trejo ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On January 11, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. The plan has been subsequently modified once.


On January 2, 2019, the Employment Development Department ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $5,678.68 ("Claim 10"). On July 30, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 10. Debtor asserts that she does not own any real property and that, therefore, Claim 10 is not secured.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

11:00 AM

CONT...


Marie Lynne Trejo


Chapter 13

Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


Here, Claim 10 is identified by Creditor as being secured, and the attachment provided by Creditor states that an abstract of judgment was filed with the Sacramento County Recorder on January 7, 2011. Pursuant to the claim objection and the schedules filed by Debtor, however, Debtor does not own any real property. Therefore, notwithstanding the recordation of an abstract of judgment, there is no property for the judgment to attach to, and the claim is unsecured.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Marie Lynne Trejo


Chapter 13


Furthermore, the Court deems failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, OVERRULING Claim 10 in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Marie Lynne Trejo Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Marie Lynne Trejo Represented By Steven A Alpert Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10990


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13


#5.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 5 by Claimant Cavalry SPV I, LLC. EH   

Docket 51

Tentative Ruling:

9/5/19

BACKGROUND:


On February 7, 2019, David & Mary Sandoval ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On May 16, 2019, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On March 20, 2019, Cavalry SPV I, LLC ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $5,743.42 ("Claim 5"). On August 8, 2019, Debtors filed an objection to Claim 10. Debtor assert that the claim has already been satisfied. On August 9, 2019, Creditor filed a withdrawal of Claim 5. The Court notes, however, that FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3006 prevents a creditor from withdrawing a proof of claim after an objection to claim has been filed.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie

11:00 AM

CONT...


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13

evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


In support of their objection to Claim 10, Debtors have attached an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment which was filed on August 29, 2018. Therefore, the judgment underlying Claim 10 having been satisfied, Claim 10 is no longer a "claim" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) and is, therefore, subject to disallowance under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1).

11:00 AM

CONT...


David Sandoval and Mary Celine Sandoval


Chapter 13


Nevertheless, the Court notes that service of the underlying claim objection is improper. Pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3007(a)(1), which is not subject to waiver by this Court, creditors must receive thirty-days’ notice of a hearing on a claim objection. Here, Debtors have only served the instant claim objection on twenty-eight days’ notice.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter to September 19, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. for the notice period to run.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Joint Debtor(s):

Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Movant(s):

David Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Mary Celine Sandoval Represented By

Bryant C MacDonald

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-12169


Jason G. Brodowski and Lithia A. Brodowski


Chapter 13


#6.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 4 by Claimant Internal Revenue Service EH   

Docket 41

Tentative Ruling:

9/5/19

BACKGROUND:


On March 18, 2019, Jason & Lithia Brodowski ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 28, 2019, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


On March 28, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim in the amount of $76,441.65, identifying $60,757.48 as entitled to priority ("Claim 4"). On August 6, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 4. Debtor asserts that the second claim filed by the IRS, Claim 9, supersedes Claim 4, and that, implicitly Claim 9 should have been filed as an amendment to Claim 4 rather than as an independent claim. On August 21, 2019. IRS withdrew Claim 4. The Court notes, however, that FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3006 renders such withdrawal ineffective.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jason G. Brodowski and Lithia A. Brodowski


Chapter 13

interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


Here, the Court notes that Claim 9 was originally filed as a duplicate claim – the amount and the basis of the claim were identical to the amount and the basis for Claim

4. Subsequently, Creditor amended Claim 9 twice to reduce the amount of the claim. Because it appears that Creditor filed a duplicate claim, noting that Creditor has since

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jason G. Brodowski and Lithia A. Brodowski


Chapter 13

attempted to withdraw Claim 4, and noting that Creditor did not oppose the instant motion, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-(1)(h), the Court is inclined to sustain the objection.


Finally, the Court notes that the originally claim objection, filed on August 6, 2019, included the wrong courtroom in the caption. While the courtroom was amended the next day, that amendment was untimely pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3007-(a) (1). The Court, however, concludes that in this circumstance, the failure to originally specify the correct courtroom did not deprive Creditor of adequate notice or service, and does not constitute a violation of FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3007-(a)(1).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 4 in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jason G. Brodowski Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Lithia A. Brodowski Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Movant(s):

Jason G. Brodowski Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jason G. Brodowski and Lithia A. Brodowski


Chapter 13

Lithia A. Brodowski Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17080


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY


MOVANT: CESAR OROZCO


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

9/5/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


Based upon the Court’s review of the motion, notice appearing proper, no opposition having been filed, and good cause appearing to rebut the presumption that the instant case was filed in bad faith pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to all creditors. The Court is inclined to DENY all remaining requests for relief as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Cesar Orozco


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13629


Rogelio Marquez and Rosa M. Perea de Marquez


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rogelio Marquez Represented By Curtis R Aijala

Joint Debtor(s):

Rosa M. Perea de Marquez Represented By Curtis R Aijala

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#9.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 3 by Claimant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company


Also #10 - #12


EH   


Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Movant(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#10.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 4 by Claimant CIT BANK, N.A. Also #9 - #12

EH   


Docket 22

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/3/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Movant(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#11.00 Motion to Avoid Lien Junior Lien with Deutsche Bank Also #9 - #12

EH   


Docket 30

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Movant(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19

Also #9 - #11 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14725


Glenda Laurene Long


Chapter 13


#13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Glenda Laurene Long Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14790


Roderick Harlan Friloux and Rebecca Andrade-Friloux


Chapter 13


#14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Roderick Harlan Friloux Represented By Tina H Trinh

Joint Debtor(s):

Rebecca Andrade-Friloux Represented By Tina H Trinh

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14800


Bradley J Allanach


Chapter 13


#15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bradley J Allanach Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14804


Michael Anthony Carreon


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Anthony Carreon Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14828


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Portia Wondaline Barmes Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14843


Rhonda Jan Kennedy


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rhonda Jan Kennedy Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14847


Phonmany Phengphavong


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Phonmany Phengphavong Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14865


Rheanna Leigh Frey


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rheanna Leigh Frey Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14881


Judy May Wells


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Judy May Wells Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14884


Jerson Alonzo and Lizeth Alonzo


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jerson Alonzo Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Joint Debtor(s):

Lizeth Alonzo Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14903


Kathlene Mae Shoults


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Kathlene Mae Shoults Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14906


Dari Kelley


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Dari Kelley Represented By

Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14925


Charles Sanchez


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Charles Sanchez Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14926


Hugo Ernesto Perez


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Hugo Ernesto Perez Represented By Lionel E Giron

Crystle Jane Lindsey

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14929


Adriana Fuentes


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Adriana Fuentes Represented By April E Roberts

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14950


Genaro Flores and Salome Flores


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Genaro Flores Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Salome Flores Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15018


Diana Nava and Ramiro Nava


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Diana Nava Represented By

Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Ramiro Nava Represented By

Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15026


Oswaldo H Perez


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Oswaldo H Perez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15032


Brian Keith Jackson


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Brian Keith Jackson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15039


Harmony Rachelle Ramos


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Harmony Rachelle Ramos Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15043


Jose Carlos Pina


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 6/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Carlos Pina Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15060


Susan Lee Miller


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Susan Lee Miller Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15066


Jason A Hightower


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jason A Hightower Represented By Donald J Gagnon III

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15074


Joseph Allen Ornelas


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph Allen Ornelas Represented By Carey C Pickford

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15077


Delfino Mendez


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/1/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Delfino Mendez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15117


Michael Colbus and Lisa Colbus


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Colbus Represented By Andrew Nguyen

Joint Debtor(s):

Lisa Colbus Represented By

Andrew Nguyen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15127


Rosie Montoya Alonzo


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/10/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rosie Montoya Alonzo Represented By

H Christopher Coburn

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15152


Bruno Lara


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bruno Lara Represented By

Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15157


Debra Jane Engers


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Debra Jane Engers Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15166


Eddie L Fitz


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eddie L Fitz Represented By

Peter L Nisson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15173


Melanie T Torres


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Melanie T Torres Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15190


Moises A Aparicio


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Moises A Aparicio Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15191


Ryan Weddle


Chapter 13


#45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ryan Weddle Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13334


Rafael Gonzalez and Sonia Cardenas


Chapter 13


#46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rafael Gonzalez Represented By Henry D Paloci

Joint Debtor(s):

Sonia Cardenas Represented By Henry D Paloci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-13510


Carmen Lucya Mendez


Chapter 13


#47.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 109

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/3/2019

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Carmen Lucya Mendez Represented By Sara E Razavi

Matthew D. Resnik

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-12191


Valicia LaShawn Fennell


Chapter 13


#48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re delinquency EH   

Docket 105


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Valicia LaShawn Fennell Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-19890


Rick Gaeta Carreon


Chapter 13


#49.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/22/19

EH   


Docket 117


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rick Gaeta Carreon Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20163


Sandra M. Hankins


Chapter 13


#50.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 82

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sandra M. Hankins Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20860


Sara R Cuevas


Chapter 13


#51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case (MATERIAL DEFAULT) EH   

Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sara R Cuevas Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11177


Gary Wayne Turner and Wanda Renay Turner


Chapter 13


#52.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 49

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

9/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary Wayne Turner Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Joint Debtor(s):

Wanda Renay Turner Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11831


Gregory Dwight Vit


Chapter 13


#53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 70

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

8/6/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gregory Dwight Vit Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13729


Paula Rosales


Chapter 13


#54.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Paula Rosales Represented By William Radcliffe

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14790


Ernesto Ayon Lopez and Dolores Millan Sanchez


Chapter 13


#55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 58

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ernesto Ayon Lopez Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Joint Debtor(s):

Dolores Millan Sanchez Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-17531


Harvey Everett Mosely and Jean Ann Mosely


Chapter 13


#56.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 56

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

9/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Harvey Everett Mosely Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Jean Ann Mosely Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12022


Maribel M Vasquez


Chapter 13


#57.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 7/11/19, 8/1/19

EH       


Docket 50

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/23/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maribel M Vasquez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13335


Annabelle M. Vigil


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14868


Michael J Soriano


Chapter 13


#59.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/22/19

EH   


Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael J Soriano Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15239


Amanda E Curry and Matthew L Curry


Chapter 13


#60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Amanda E Curry Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Matthew L Curry Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15343


Jennifer Isabella Solares


Chapter 13


#61.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/22/19

EH   


Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16996


Gabriel Cruz


Chapter 13


#62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 50


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gabriel Cruz Represented By

Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17204


Justo Ocegueda


Chapter 13


#63.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 37

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

9/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Justo Ocegueda Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-18821


Humberto Camacho, Jr and Sarah Camacho


Chapter 13


#64.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Humberto Camacho Jr Represented By Christian N. Cooper

Joint Debtor(s):

Sarah Camacho Represented By Christian N. Cooper

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-19956


Herman A. Wendorff and Monica Wendorff


Chapter 13


#65.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 44

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Herman A. Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Monica Wendorff Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20413


Jose Ramon Castaneda


Chapter 13


#66.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 40

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 8/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Ramon Castaneda Represented By Andrew Moher

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10415


Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


Chapter 13


#67.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10684


Rodrigo Flores Saavedra and Juana Garcia De Flores


Chapter 13


#68.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 28

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

9/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rodrigo Flores Saavedra Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Joint Debtor(s):

Juana Garcia De Flores Represented By

James Geoffrey Beirne

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11041


Caleb J. Bellot and Mandle Lynn Bellot


Chapter 13


#69.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Caleb J. Bellot Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Mandle Lynn Bellot Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11371


Warren Alan Hall and Kelly Suzanne Hall


Chapter 13


#70.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 67

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Warren Alan Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Joint Debtor(s):

Kelly Suzanne Hall Represented By Lionel E Giron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11766


Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


Chapter 13


#71.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 25

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

9/3/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

12:00 PM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


#72.00 CONT Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Cross-Complaint From: 8/1/19

EH   


Docket 149

Tentative Ruling:

REAL ESTATE BROKER THERESA MANN’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD CROSS- COMPLAINT

BACKGROUND


On November 11, 2016, Plaintiffs Mark and Natasha Reynoso ("Plaintiffs") filed an adversarial proceeding against Douglas and Anne Goodman ("Defendants"). Plaintiffs sought to determine the dischargeability of their state court claim against Defendants for misrepresentation. The state court claim was based on the alleged misrepresentations by Defendants and Theresa Mann ("Mann"), Defendants’ real estate agent, in regard to the sale of Defendants’ home to Plaintiffs. This covered both the actual size of the home, as well as the repairs that needed to be performed on the home.


On June 6, 2017, Defendants filed their first cross-complaint against Mann and Jose Pastora. One May 14, 2019, Defendants filed their third, and most current cross- complaint against Mann and Pastora. Defendants, based on Plaintiffs’ claims, allege that it was Mann who made the misrepresentations to Plaintiffs as to the size of the home, and the state of repair of the home, and that Mann held sole responsibility for Plaintiffs’ alleged damages. Defendants claim three grounds for relief: (1)- equitable comparative indemnity and apportionment of fault across cross defendants; (2)- total equitable indemnity against all cross defendants; and (3)- negligent misrepresentation.


Defendants request the following relief: (1)- a finding of total and complete indemnity for any judgment rendered against Defendants by Plaintiff; (2)- for judgment in

12:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

proportionate share from each Cross-Defendant; (3)- for Defendants costs and expenses incurred in the defense of Plaintiff’s claim, as well as in bringing their cross- claim against Mann and Pastora, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.


On June 7, 2019, counsel for Defendants emailed counsel for Mann to inform him that Defendants and Plaintiffs had settled Plaintiffs’ claim. According to Defendants in their opposition to this motion to dismiss (addressed in greater detail below), the settlement was for $1,600 and involves the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim. A motion to approve compromise, or a motion to dismiss, as not yet been resolved in the adversarial complaint. In addition, the Court entered an order on July 19, 2019, granting a stipulation between Defendants and Pastora to dismiss Pastora from the cross-complaint.


Mann filed a motion on June 13, 2019, to dismiss the cross-complaint against Mann without leave to amend. Mann bases her argument on two main grounds. The first is that the settlement of the case between Plaintiffs and Defendants has removed the legal basis for the grounds for a claim of indemnification. This is because the settlement had removed any possibility for Defendants to actually be found liable for the claim, and contractual or implied indemnification requires a finding of liability. Second, the Plaintiff’s complaint for a finding of nondischargeability was not an appropriate claim to base a third-party complaint on. Third, and on a related note, the requested relief sought is outside of the jurisdiction of the Court as a monetary judgment.


Defendants filed their opposition to Mann’s motion to dismiss the cross-complaint on July 18, 2019. Defendants base their opposition on the grounds that, even if the case had been settled between Defendants and Plaintiffs, Defendants had suffered

$26,715.00 in damages from defending Plaintiffs’ claim, encompassing $1,600 from the settlement, and around $25,115 in attorneys’ fees and costs. They allege that the cross-claim had thus not been rendered moot by the settlement, as Defendants were seeking reimbursement from Mann for the damages she allegedly caused. Defendants also claim that the contract between Defendants and Mann included an attorneys’ fees and costs provision, which would allow Defendants to seek the fees and costs incurred in pursuing their claim against Mann.


DISCUSSION


Under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), made applicable in adversary proceedings through Rule 7012, a bankruptcy court may dismiss a complaint if it fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In reviewing a Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the trial court

12:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). However, the trial court need not accept as true conclusory allegations in a complaint or legal characterizations cast in the form of factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007);

Hartman v. Gilead Scis., Inc. (In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.), 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).


To avoid dismissal under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must aver in the complaint "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868

(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). It is axiomatic that a claim cannot be plausible when it has no legal basis. A dismissal under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) may be based either on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v.

Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008).


The Court will begin with Mann’s arguments that Defendants’ cross-complaint/third- party complaint against Mann lacks jurisdiction.


Defendants’ primary claim against Mann rests on their request for a monetary judgment against Mann, and Plaintiffs also requested a monetary judgment in their complaint against Defendants. Mann argues that bankruptcy courts do not have the jurisdiction to enter monetary judgments in relation to complaints for nondischargeability. Circuit courts are split as to whether bankruptcy courts have the jurisdiction to enter monetary judgments as part of nondischargeability complaints. 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 523.32 (Richard Levin and Henry Sommer eds., 16th ed.). However, the 9th Circuit is one of the circuits which has found that bankruptcy courts have this jurisdiction. See In re Kennedy, 108 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 1997). As such, the Court finds that it has the jurisdiction to hear a request for monetary judgment as part of an adversarial complaint based on a claim for nondischargeability.


Mann correctly argues that the matter before the Court isn’t a cross-complaint, but rather is a third-party complaint, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

F.R.C.P. 14(a)(1) (stating that actions that fall under the grounds of a third-party complaint, including a defendant’s complaint against a third party who may be liable for all or part of a claim against the defendant). Mann uses this to argue that it is improper for a third-party complaint to seek a monetary judgment when the complaint is attached to an adversarial proceeding in a bankruptcy court based on a complaint for nondischargeability. Mann cites to several cases from the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th Circuits in

12:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

which third party complaints seeking monetary judgments were dismissed as improper when they stemmed from adversarial proceedings based on complaints for a finding of nondischargeability. However, the Court restates that, unlike the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th Circuits, the 9th Circuit does permit monetary judgments in relation to complaints for nondischargeability. See In re Kennedy, 108 F.3d at 1018. As such, the Court finds that it has the jurisdiction to hear complaints for monetary judgment in relation to adversarial proceedings based on a complaint for nondischargeability, including third- party complaints for monetary judgments.


Next, the Court will consider Mann’s argument that the settling of the case between Plaintiffs and Defendants have rendered Defendants claim for indemnification against Mann moot. Mann’s primary argument is that indemnification is dependent on liability, and the settling of the case has removed any potential chance for Defendants to be found liable. However, California law permits a settling party to seek indemnification from a third party for an equitable portion of a settlement. C.f.

Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, 8 Cal. 4th 100, 118-9 (Cal. 1994) (reversing a trial court judgment granting a 30% indemnification of a settlement amount, on the grounds that the defendant had not independently proven the portion of the damages that were directly caused by the hospital. In other words, the appellate court found that the defendant could seek indemnification of a settlement with the plaintiff if the defendant could establish the indemnitor’s independent liability). As such, Defendants have stated a claim for which relief can be granted by requesting that Mann indemnify Defendants for either a part, or the total, of the settlement agreement between Defendants and Plaintiff.


Next, the Court will consider whether Defendants have stated a claim for which relief may be granted for the recovery of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Defendants in defending against Plaintiffs’ claim. Under Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1021.6, a party who prevails on a claim for implied indemnity may be awarded the attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the underlying complaint if the court finds that: (1) the indemnitee had been required to act in the protection of their interest by defending an action by a third person which stemmed from the tort of the indemnitor; (2) the indemnitor was properly notified of the demand to provide the defense and did not avail itself of the opportunity to do so; and (3) that the trier of fact determined that the indemnitee was without fault in the principal case which is the basis for the action in indemnity, or that the indemnitee had a final judgment entered in their favor granting a summary judgment, a nonsuit, or a directed verdict.

12:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

The claim for relief by Defendants against Mann for attorneys’ fees stems from their claim for implied indemnity against Mann. However, while the facts they have stated may be sufficient to satisfy element (1), they are currently insufficient to satisfy the requirements of proper notification under element (2), and the settling of the claim between Defendants and Plaintiffs means that (3) is completely impossible, as a trier of fact will never determine whether Defendants were without fault, nor will there be a final judgment entered in Defendants’ favor. As such, since Defendants cannot meet

§ 1021.6, it does not appear that they can state a claim for which relief can be granted against Mann in relation to the reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred defending against Plaintiffs’ claim.


Finally, the Court will address Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses related to the bringing of the third-party complaints against Mann. The Court finds that Defendants have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.


As such, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the third-party complaint, and that the settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants have not rendered the third- party complaint moot. The Court is thus inclined to deny Mann’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint in regard to the claim for indemnification for the $1,600 in settlement proceeds paid by Defendants to Plaintiffs. In addition, the Court is also inclined to deny the motion to dismiss in regard to Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees in relation to the third-party claim brought against Mann. However, the Court is inclined to dismiss with prejudice Defendants’ claim against Mann for the attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred as a result of Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants.


TENTATIVE RULING


8/1/2019


SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: YES


THE COURT IS INCLINED TO DENY MOVANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AS TO REQUESTS FOR RELIEF NUMBERS

12:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

1 AND 2, REGARDING THE TOTAL AND COMPLETE INDEMNITY FOR ANY JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND FOR JUDGMENT IN PROPORTIONATE SHARE FROM EACH CROSS-DEFENDANT. DENY IN REGARD TO THE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES, INCURRED IN BRINGING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST MANN. GRANT IN REGARD TO THE COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Defendant(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

Theresa Mann Pro Se

Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

Theresa Mann Pro Se

Theresa Mann Represented By Andrew L Leff

Plaintiff(s):

Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By

12:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Douglas Edward Goodman


Michael J Hemming


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-19432


Kirk Eugene Frantz and Mary Elizabeth Frantz


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 152079 Rio Vista Road, Big River, CA 92242


MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


From: 5/28/19, 6/4/19, 7/9/19, 7/30/19 EH   

Docket 155

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11/5/19 AT 11:00 AM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kirk Eugene Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Mary Elizabeth Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as Represented By

Erin M McCartney Edward G Schloss

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-20860


Sara R Cuevas


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 25927 Summer Hill Court, Murrieta, CA 92563


MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 60


Tentative Ruling:

9/10/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to apprise the Court of the status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sara R Cuevas Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank National Association as Represented By

Ashish R Rawat Diane Weifenbach

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-18230


Ricardo Munoz and Roseann Munoz


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1554 N Helen Ct, Ontario, California 91762


MOVANT: J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP


From: 8/27/19 EH   

Docket 44

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 8/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of adequate protection discussions, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ricardo Munoz Represented By Michael E Clark

Joint Debtor(s):

Roseann Munoz Represented By Michael E Clark

Movant(s):

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Represented By

Gilbert R Yabes

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Ricardo Munoz and Roseann Munoz


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-16489


Rebecca Moore


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23093 Canyon Hills Drive, Corona, CA 92883


MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 51

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/19/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rebecca Moore Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By Jamie D Hanawalt Gilbert R Yabes Raymond Jereza

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18168


Nicholas Head


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 TOYOTA COROLLA


MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

9/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nicholas Head Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Movant(s):

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By

Erica T Loftis Pacheco

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18504


Elmer Arnold Tompkins


Chapter 13


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 804 Tribune Street, Redlands, CA 92374


MOVANT: NEWREZ LLC


EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

9/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elmer Arnold Tompkins Represented By Scott Kosner

Movant(s):

NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Represented By Mark S Krause

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18739


Heather Gibson


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 KIA OPTIMA LX SEDAN 4D (VIN #5XXGT4L34JG266107)


MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES


EH   


Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

9/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Heather Gibson Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Movant(s):

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Represented By

Mark S Krause

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14089


Mario Martinez and Christine Martinez


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 8356 Forest Park Street, Chino, CA 91708


MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 16


Tentative Ruling:

9/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) because the motion indicates that there is equity in the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)

  1. stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mario Martinez Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Christine Martinez Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

    Movant(s):

    Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Darlene C Vigil

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Trustee(s):


    Mario Martinez and Christine Martinez


    Chapter 7

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-14795


    Ricardo Felipe Rodas Landaverde and DYANNA STEFANI


    Chapter 7


    #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2012 Tesla Model S, VIN: 5YJSA1DN1CFS00800


    MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE LLC


    EH   


    Docket 17


    Tentative Ruling:

    9/10/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ricardo Felipe Rodas Landaverde Represented By

    Edward A Bauman Jr

    Joint Debtor(s):

    DYANNA STEFANI LINARES Represented By

    Edward A Bauman Jr

    Movant(s):

    TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Ricardo Felipe Rodas Landaverde and DYANNA STEFANI

    Sheryl K Ith Jennifer H Wang


    Chapter 7

    Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-15606


    Victor Manuel Samano, Jr.


    Chapter 7


    #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 NTCTI NEW TREND UTILITY


    MOVANT: MEDALLION BANK


    EH   


    Docket 9


    Tentative Ruling:

    9/10/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Victor Manuel Samano Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

    Movant(s):

    Medallion Bank Represented By

    Erica T Loftis Pacheco

    Trustee(s):

    Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-15700


    Ellis Estes


    Chapter 7


    #11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Dodge Ram (VIN# 1C6RR7GG9FS664441)


    MOVANT: NUVISION FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


    EH   


    Docket 10


    Tentative Ruling:

    9/10/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Ellis Estes Represented By

    Julie J Villalobos

    Movant(s):

    NuVision Federal Credit Union Represented By Alana B Anaya

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-16210


    Edward Joey Mish, Jr


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: Real Property: 12476 13th St, Yucaipa, CA 92399


    MOVANT: EDWARD & WENDY SOUSA, AS TRUSTEES OF THE SOUSA REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST


    EH   


    Docket 24


    Tentative Ruling:

    9/10/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    Before the Court is Movant’s renewed motion for relief from stay. The Court notes that Movant filed an earlier motion which was denied by the Court on August 27, 2019. Despite instructions from the Court to lodge an order on the motion, no order was timely lodged. This hearing will be continued for that order denying the last motion to be lodged.


    Prior to the hearing of August 27, 2019, the Court posted a tentative ruling noting that notice and service were improper, and also noting three substantive issues with the motion. The Court notes that in its renewed motion, Movant has corrected the notice and service issues noted by the Court. The substantive issues, however, remain materially unresolved by this renewed motion. The following three deficiencies were noted by the Court in its previous tentative ruling:


    1. Movant requests relief from the § 1301(a) co-debtor stay, yet there has not been service on any co-debtor.

    2. Second, Movant requests confirmation that no stay is in effect, yet the relevant subsections identified in the motion, § 362(b)(22) and (23), do not appear

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Edward Joey Mish, Jr

      applicable to this case.

    3. Third, Movant requests annulment of the automatic stay to validate the


      Chapter 13

      unlawful detainer judgment, yet Movant has not provided a declaration or any detailed evidence in support of its request. The Court notes that Movant was listed in the originally creditor mailing matrix, and it is unclear why Movant would not have been aware of the bankruptcy for twenty-seven days.


      Regarding the first request, Movant appears to have taken no action to respond to the Court’s concern. This renewed motion once again requests relief from the co-debtor stay but contains no service on any co-debtor.


      Regarding the second request, the Court notes that Movant has removed the request for the Court to confirm that no stay is in effect, however, the body of the motion has not been altered and continues to contain legally inaccurate assertions.


      Regarding the third request, while Movant has provided a declaration providing some detail to support annulment of the automatic stay, that declaration does not address the most important point previously raised by the Court – that Movant was listed in the creditor mailing matrix. Because Movant was listed in the creditor mailing matrix, the Court mailed Movant a notice of bankruptcy filing on July 19, 2019, twenty-four days before Movant states that it received notice. This discrepancy remains unaddressed.


      At a continued hearing, once the order has been lodged denying the last motion, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

      DENY request for relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for annulment of the automatic stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Edward Joey Mish Jr Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Movant(s):

      Edward & Wendy Sousa As Trustees Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Edward Joey Mish, Jr


      William E Windham


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16308


      Sue Ellen Calapardo Guevara


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 BMW i3 Hatchback 4D


      MOVANT: BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      9/10/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sue Ellen Calapardo Guevara Represented By Edgar P Lombera

      Movant(s):

      BMW Bank of North America Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16857


      Thomas Craig Feeley


      Chapter 7


      #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 HONDA ACCORD VIN 1HGCV3F15JA012268


      MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE LLC


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      9/10/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Thomas Craig Feeley Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16926


      Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 37625 Early Ln., Murrieta, CA 92563


      MOVANT: AARON D. WEINFIELD AND SHELITA C. WEINFIELD TRUSTEES OF THE WEINFIELD FAMILY TRUST, DATED DECEMBER 7, 2004


      From: 8/27/19 EH   

      Docket 9

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/28/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      8/27/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown. Specifically, Movant has not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate that Debtor’s principal residence is not necessary to an effective reorganization. DENY request for relief from § 1301(a) stay because no co-debtor was served with this motion. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Aaron D. Weinfield and Shelita C. Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam


      Scott Andrews


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17200


      Michelle Crain


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Debtors Residence


      MOVANT: MICHELLE CRAIN


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      9/10/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court having reviewed the motion, notice appearing proper and good cause appearing, the Court is inclined to find that the debtor has submitted sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the case was filed in bad faith pursuant to 11

      U.S.C. § 363(c)(3)(C). Therefore, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to Bank of New York Mellon c/o Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michelle Crain Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      Michelle Crain Represented By Dana Travis

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Michelle Crain


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17211


      Leroy Elanders Bray, III


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 10757 Lemon Avenue #1735 Alta Loma, CA 91737


      MOVANT: RH PARK ALTA LOMA OWNER LLC


      EH   


      Docket 7

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Leroy Elanders Bray III Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Todd Brisco Represented By

      Todd A Brisco

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10155


      Jose De Jesus Hernandez


      Chapter 11


      #18.00 CONT Motion To Accept Contribution Funds To Pay The Secured Second Trust Deed Holder In Full For The Property Located At 3095 Ocelot Cir, Corona, Ca. 92882 Under Bankruptcy Code Section 105(A)


      From: 8/14/19 EH   

      Docket 150

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED

      9/5/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan

      Movant(s):

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #19.00 (Jointly Administered - LEAD CASE - 19-13127 MH)

      CONT Motion To Compel Assumption Or Rejection Of Defaulted Unexpired Lease Of Personal Property; For Adequate Protection And Maintenance Payments Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. §365(d)(5); And For Relief From Stay In Event Of Rejection Of Lease


      From:8/27/19 EH   

      Docket 134

      *** VACATED *** REASON: STIPULATED ORDER ENTERED 8/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      Movant(s):

      Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By

      Cheryl A Skigin

      3:30 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #20.00 CONT Motion Seeking An Order: (a) To Show Cause As To Why Timothy Sullivan Should Not Be Held In Contempt For Failing To Comply With The Court's Order Compelling Him To Comply With A Subpoena Duces Tecum; and/or (b) Requiring Timothy Sullivan To Produce Documents Without Redaction; and (c) Reopening Expert Discovery For The Purpose Of Having Timothy Sullivan Appear For Continue Deposition


      From: 8/21/19 EH   

      Docket 563

      Tentative Ruling:

      8/21/2019

      BACKGROUND


      On April 25, 2008, Empire Land, LLC ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On December 8, 2008, Debtor’s case was converted to Chapter 7.


      Between March 26, 2010, and April 23, 2010, the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Plaintiff") filed 107 adversary proceedings, including this adversary proceeding, 6:10-1319, in which the primary defendant is Empire Partners, Inc. ("Defendant"). While the instant motion was filed in 6:10-1319, it is also related to two other adversary proceedings, 09-1235 and 10-1329.


      During the years of litigation in the instant case, the parties have been embroiled in

      3:30 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      several discovery disputes and have obtained numerous extensions of discovery deadlines. The current discovery dispute began in June 2018, when Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum (the "Subpoena") on Timothy Sullivan ("Sullivan"), an expert witness of Plaintiff. Two weeks later, Plaintiff and Sullivan objected to the Subpoena.


      On January 9, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to compel compliance with the Subpoena. After two continuances, the Court heard the matter on March 27, 2019, and, on May 9, 2019, entered an order granting the motion in part. Specifically, the Court granted the motion with respect to request for production number one and denied the motion with respect to requests for production numbers two through ten. Request for product number one states the following:


      All DOCUMENTS that constitute communications with PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL that relate to compensation for SULLIVAN’S study or testimony in this LITIGATION. This request includes all communications regarding compensation, as described in the 2010 Advisory Committee Notes, which states:


      Under Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i) attorney-expert communications regarding compensation for the expert’s study or testimony may be the subject of discovery. In some cases, this discovery may go beyond the disclosure requirement in Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(vi). It is not limited to compensation for work forming the opinions to be expressed, but extends to all compensation for the study and testimony provided in relation to the action. Any communications about additional benefits to the expert, such as further work in the event of a successful result in the present case, would be included. This exception includes compensation for work done by a person or organization associated with the expert. The objective is to permit full inquiry into such potential sources of bias.

      3:30 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      [Dkt. No. 563, Ex. A]. The Court ordered that the relevant documents be produced within thirty days of the entry of the order.


      On May 30, 2019, Defendant received a response to the Subpoena. Defendant characterizes the response as follows:


      In contemptuous defiance of the Order, on May 30, 2019, Mr. Sullivan allowed counsel for the Trustee to produce heavily redacted invoices, including those attached to the Declaration of Jeffrey Rosenfeld as Exhibit 1. The communications regarding compensation that were produced on behalf of Mr. Sullivan in redacted form prevented discovery and deposition on crucial information about the work that Mr. Sullivan and others at this firm performed in this matter. Based on the materials that were not redacted, it is obvious that most of the work was done by people other than Mr. Sullivan, since most of the hours identified were billed by others, including Ryan Early, Brent Koenig, JT Schwartz, Adam McAbee, Steve Carr, Ada Kaiser, Lisa Wells, Stiles McCauley, and Peter Dennehy.


      [Dkt. No. 563, pg. 12, lines 19-28] (citations omitted). Plaintiff generally argues that the redactions were appropriate because the material redacted was not discoverable under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4) and pursuant to attorney- client privilege and the work product doctrine.


      LEGAL ANALYSIS


      Local Rule 9020-1 outlines the two-step process that is initiated when a party in interest seeks a holding finding a party in contempt. First, pursuant to Local Rule 9020-1(b), a motion is filed requesting that the Court issue an order to show cause why a party should not be held in contempt. Pursuant to Local Rule 9020-1(b), the responding party has seven days to respond to the motion. Unsurprisingly, given the short notice window and given the protections afforded by the two-step process, an objection to the issuance of an order to show cause is relatively uncommon. When no objection is filed, the Court

      3:30 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      generally issues the order to show cause pursuant to Local Rule 9020-1(d).

      When an objection to the issuance of an order to show cause is filed, however, the local rules do not provide clear instructions as to the proper procedure to be employed. Given the totality of Local Rule 9020-1, which implies that the Court is to hold a hearing and weigh evidence during the second step of the process, the Court concludes that detailed factual findings are not appropriately issued during the first stage of the process, and that the factual assertions made by Defendant are entitled to deference at this initial stage.

      Therefore, while the parties have provided the Court with a number of exhibits, the Court concludes that the resolution of disputed facts is not appropriate at this stage.

      Confining itself to the operative legal dispute, the Court turns to FED. R. CIV. P.

      Rule 26(b)(4)-(5), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR.

      P. Rule 7026, which state, in pertinent part:

    4. Trial Preparation: Experts.

      1. Deposition of an Expert Who May Testify. A party may depose any person who has been identified as an expert whose opinions may be presented at trial. If Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a report from the expert, the deposition may be conducted only after the report is provided.

      2. Trial-Preparation Protection for Draft Reports or Disclosures. Rule 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect drafts of any report or disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2), regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded.

      3. Trial-Preparation Protection for Communications Between a Party’s Attorney and Expert Witness. Rule 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect communications between the party’s attorney and any witness required to provide a report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the communications:

        1. relate to compensation for the expert’s student or testimony;

        2. identify facts or data that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or

        3. identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to be expressed.

          3:30 PM

          CONT...


          Empire Land, LLC

    5. Claiming Privilege or Protecting Trial-Preparation Materials.

      1. Information Withheld. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparataion material, the party must:

        1. expressly make the claim; and

        2. describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed – and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.


Chapter 7


Here, the basis for the Subpoena was FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), and the Subpoena closely tracked the language of the provision, while quoting at length from the relevant advisory committee notes.

Defendant asks the Court to focus on the requirements set forth in FED. R. CIV.

P. Rule 26(b)(5) for claiming privilege or protecting trial-preparation materials.1 According to Defendant, because Sullivan did not follow the approach outlined in FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(5)(A), Sullivan has waived privilege, and, as a result, could not have properly invoked an applicable privilege in support of the redactions made.


Plaintiff asks the Court to focus on the phrase "otherwise discoverable." According to Plaintiff, because the subject of the redactions was outside the scope of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), the subject of the redactions was not discoverable, and, therefore, the procedure outlined in FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(5)(A) did not need to be followed.


Because FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i) is a 2010 amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties appear to have only provided a single case addressing that subsection, and that case is of limited utility.

Nevertheless, the Court believes that a resolution of the current legal dispute is apparent.


First, a brief review of the information outlined in the background section is illustrative. Second request for production number one in the Subpoena closely tracked the language of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i). After Sullivan objected to the Subpoena, Defendant filed a motion to compel arguing that the scope of request for production number one was permissible under FED. R. CIV.

P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C). Third, the Court entered an order compelling compliance

3:30 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

with request for production number one – a natural result given that the request for production closely tracked, and did not exceed, the limits of discoverable information under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C). This case is not a case where a litigant served an overly broad subpoena, which targeted both properly discoverable and privileged information, forcing the other party to assert a privilege to restrict the scope of the subpoena. Instead, the subpoena issued by Defendant was, from the beginning, reasonable and properly tailored to limit the request to discoverable information. Because the subpoena did not seek privileged information, there was no need for Sullivan to respond by invoking privilege through the procedures of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(5)(A).


Instead, it appears that Defendant is now asking to increase the scope of the Subpoena, requesting new information that was not within its original scope. As noted by Defendant in its motion to compel:


RFP # 1 seeks discovery of all communications between plaintiff’s counsel and the expert that relate to the expert’s compensation. The request is based on the language adopted in 2010 as Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(4)(C)(i), and incorporates the 2010 Advisory Committee Notes with respect to the type of discovery that is permitted with respect to communications regarding compensation.


[Dkt. No. 495, pg. 15, lines 11-17]. And, as noted earlier, because the Subpoena was properly and narrowly drafted from the beginning, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel with respect to document production number one.


As noted by the court in Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 584: "As the 2010 Advisory Committee Note suggests, the focus of permitted discovery is on the amount of expert compensation, not on the tasks performed that led to compensation." Quite simply, in attempting to argue that Sullivan has waived privilege related to this supplemental information, Defendant ignores the fact that the scope of the Subpoena never targeted this supplemental information in the first place.


To the extent Plaintiff raises the argument, for the reasons detailed in Defendant’s motion and reply, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that "[a] privilege log is only required where, in response to a discovery request, a party withholds information that is ‘otherwise discoverable.’" [Dkt. No. 567, pg. 9, lines 17-18]. On the other hand, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s more limited argument that:

3:30 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC

Since Request No. 1 sought "attorney-expert communications" that fall within the exception in Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), the Request necessarily did not require the production of detailed work descriptions in the invoice back-up documents that fall outside the exception. Accordingly, the Trustee and Mr. Sullivan did not need to assert attorney-client privilege or work product objections to Request No. 1 in order to protect the detailed work descriptions in those invoice back-up documents."


Chapter 7


The Court notes that to the extent the redacted information actually constituted information within the scope of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 26(b)(4)(C)(i), then the Court would consider the redactions to be violations of the Court’s order compelling a response to request for production number one. While there are portions of Defendant’s motion which do raise that contention, the pleadings presented to the Court seem primarily focused on whether redactions were improper because any applicable privilege was waived.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

Michael I. Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

3:30 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Paul Roman Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Movant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

3:30 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

Michael I. Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

Alexander J Suarez

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

10:00 AM

6:19-14673


Daniel Alfred Fox


Chapter 7


#1.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Alaska USA Federal Credit Union re 2015 Chevrolet Camaro


EH   


Docket 13

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Alfred Fox Represented By Yolanda Flores-Burt

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-15309

Megan Anne Lynch and Daniel Eric Lynch

Chapter 7

#2.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Kia Motors Finance re 2018 Kia Forte

EH   

Docket 11

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Megan Anne Lynch Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Daniel Eric Lynch Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-15430


Jessica Y Solis


Chapter 7


#3.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation re 2013 Toyota Corolla


EH   


Docket 8

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jessica Y Solis Represented By Gilbert A Diaz

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-15534

Xavier Mayagoitia Ramirez and Ana Janeth Ramirez

Chapter 7

#4.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Santander Consumer USA Inc. re 17 Jeep Grand Cherokee

EH   

Docket 14

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Xavier Mayagoitia Ramirez Represented By

Michael H Colmenares

Joint Debtor(s):

Ana Janeth Ramirez Represented By

Michael H Colmenares

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01248 Revere Financial Corporation, a California corpora v. Roger, MD


#5.00 CONT Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative For Partial Summary Judgment


From: 9/4/19 EH   

Docket 147

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FILED 8/16/19

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Movant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation, a Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Jerry Wang Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Franklin R Fraley Jr Anthony J Napolitano


Chapter 7

A. Cisneros Represented By

Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01248 Revere Financial Corporation, a California corpora v. Roger, MD


#6.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Amended Complaint (First) by Revere Financial Corporation and Jerry Wang, as State-Court Appointed Receiver by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation, a California corporation against Revere Financial Corporation, a California corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-8)


From: 4/25/18, 6/13/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 7/31/19


EH   


Docket 82

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11/20/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation, a Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Jerry Wang Represented By

Franklin R Fraley Jr Anthony J Napolitano

A. Cisneros Represented By

Chad V Haes

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Douglas Jay Roger


D Edward Hays


Chapter 7

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:18-20756


Karl W Detlefsen


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01057 Maslar v. Detlefsen


#7.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01057. Complaint by Jennifer Maslar against Karl W Detlefsen. willful and malicious injury))


From: 6/5/19, 8/21/19 EH   

Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: JUDGMENT ENTERED 8/26/19

Party Information

Karl W Detlefsen Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Defendant(s):

Karl W Detlefsen Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Jennifer Maslar Represented By Sanaz S Bereliani

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-17431


James Michael Gorman


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01102 Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Commissioner of the S v. Gorman


#8.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01102. Complaint by Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, in his capacity as the Receiver of Ullico Casualty Company against James Michael Gorman. fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Arnold, Todd)


EH   


Docket 1

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Michael Gorman Pro Se

Defendant(s):

James Michael Gorman Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Represented By Todd M Arnold

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:13-28666


Mildred Goodridge Crawford


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15742 RIO BLANCO TRAIL, MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555


MOVANT: THE MORENO VALLEY RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 249


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/2019


Service is proper Opposition: Debtor


Debtor has not presented any evidence or itemization in support of the arrears she disputes. The Court is Inclined to GRANT the requested relief except for the request for in rem relief.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mildred Goodridge Crawford Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Movant(s):

The Moreno Valley Ranch Represented By Erin A Maloney

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Mildred Goodridge Crawford


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-15914


Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 1C6RR6GG7HS651216


MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.


From: 7/30/19, 8/27/19, 9/3/19 EH    

Docket 43

Tentative Ruling:


9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor


Parties to apprise the court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


7/30/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda

Party Information


Chapter 13

Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Movant(s):

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Represented By

Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-20659


Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2767 Libra Dr., Riverside, California 92503-6018


MOVANT: NEWREZ LLC


From: 8/20/19, 9/3/19 EH   

Docket 63

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

8/20/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the cure of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Romy Abalunan Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

11:00 AM

CONT...


Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadine Nieves Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Represented By

Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-20860


Sara R Cuevas


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 25927 Summer Hill Court, Murrieta, CA 92563


MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 9/10/19 EH   

Docket 60


Tentative Ruling:

9/10/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to apprise the Court of the status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sara R Cuevas Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank National Association as Represented By

Ashish R Rawat Diane Weifenbach

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-11010


Gary F Pico and Mercedes P. Pico


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 39119 Crown Ranch Road, Temecula, California 92591


MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


EH   


Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Debtors


Parties to apprise the court of the status of adequate protection discussions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary F Pico Represented By

Gregory Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Mercedes P. Pico Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Movant(s):

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC by Represented By

Mark S Krause

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Gary F Pico and Mercedes P. Pico


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-11407


Rushelyn Napalan


Chapter 13


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6747 Woodrush Way, Corona, California 92880


MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


EH   


Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/19


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 6. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rushelyn Napalan Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee Mary D Vitartas Gilbert R Yabes

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Rushelyn Napalan


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-15026


Joe R Garcia


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15420 BELLO WAY, MORENO VALLEY, CA 92555


MOVANT: THE MORENO VALLEY RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 43

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 9/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

9/17/19


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT requests under ¶ 2. DENY request under ¶ 10 for lack of cause shown.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joe R Garcia Represented By

Neil R Hedtke

Movant(s):

Moreno Valley Ranch Community Represented By

Erin A Maloney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15013


Lucy Wieder


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA CIVIC, VIN: 2HGF C2F6 XHH5 08929


MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. §365(p)(1) provides for the automatic termination of the automatic stay with respect to a lease of personal property which is rejected or not timely assumed. Here, debtor did not timely assume the lease. Therefore, the automatic stay has already been terminated, and the Court is inclined to Deny the motion as moot.


APPEARANCE REQUIRED.


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lucy Wieder Represented By

Susan Jill Wolf

Movant(s):

HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15606


Victor Manuel Samano, Jr.


Chapter 7


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 TOYOTA COROLLA


MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § §362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Victor Manuel Samano Jr. Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By

Erica T Loftis Pacheco

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15740


Jose Alfredo Valdez-Higuera


Chapter 7


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Yamaha YFM70RSXHL


MOVANT: YAMAHA MOTOR FINANCE CORP


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Alfredo Valdez-Higuera Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Yamaha Motor Finance Corp. Represented By Karel G Rocha

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16210


Edward Joey Mish, Jr


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: Real Property: 12476 13th St, Yucaipa, CA 92399


MOVANT: EDWARD & WENDY SOUSA, AS TRUSTEES OF THE SOUSA REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST


From: 9/10/19 EH   

Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

9/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


Before the Court is Movant’s renewed motion for relief from stay. The Court notes that Movant filed an earlier motion which was denied by the Court on August 27, 2019. Despite instructions from the Court to lodge an order on the motion, no order was timely lodged. This hearing will be continued for that order denying the last motion to be lodged.


Prior to the hearing of August 27, 2019, the Court posted a tentative ruling noting that notice and service were improper, and also noting three substantive issues with the motion. The Court notes that in its renewed motion, Movant has corrected the notice and service issues noted by the Court. The substantive issues, however, remain materially unresolved by this renewed motion. The following three deficiencies were noted by the Court in its previous tentative ruling:


  1. Movant requests relief from the § 1301(a) co-debtor stay, yet there has not been service on any co-debtor.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Edward Joey Mish, Jr


    Chapter 13

  2. Second, Movant requests confirmation that no stay is in effect, yet the relevant subsections identified in the motion, § 362(b)(22) and (23), do not appear applicable to this case.

  3. Third, Movant requests annulment of the automatic stay to validate the unlawful detainer judgment, yet Movant has not provided a declaration or any detailed evidence in support of its request. The Court notes that Movant was listed in the originally creditor mailing matrix, and it is unclear why Movant would not have been aware of the bankruptcy for twenty-seven days.


Regarding the first request, Movant appears to have taken no action to respond to the Court’s concern. This renewed motion once again requests relief from the co-debtor stay but contains no service on any co-debtor.


Regarding the second request, the Court notes that Movant has removed the request for the Court to confirm that no stay is in effect, however, the body of the motion has not been altered and continues to contain legally inaccurate assertions.


Regarding the third request, while Movant has provided a declaration providing some detail to support annulment of the automatic stay, that declaration does not address the most important point previously raised by the Court – that Movant was listed in the creditor mailing matrix. Because Movant was listed in the creditor mailing matrix, the Court mailed Movant a notice of bankruptcy filing on July 19, 2019, twenty-four days before Movant states that it received notice. This discrepancy remains unaddressed.


At a continued hearing, once the order has been lodged denying the last motion, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

DENY request for relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request for annulment of the automatic stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edward Joey Mish Jr Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Edward Joey Mish, Jr


Chapter 13

Edward & Wendy Sousa As Trustees Represented By

William E Windham

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16786


Donald Kent Schiro


Chapter 7


#12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2005 Chevrolet Colorado LS VIN 1GCCS136058161356


MOVANT: NASA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Donald Kent Schiro Represented By Robert L Firth

Movant(s):

NASA Federal Credit Union Represented By

Diana Torres-Brito

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-15816


Integrated Wealth Management Inc


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:19-01100 Issa v. Delaney et al


#13.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01100 Complaint by J. Michael Issa against Ryan Delaney, John Wong, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. (Charge To Estate)($350.00) for: 1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Negligence [Demand for Jury Trial] Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Ignatuk, Joseph)


EH       


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/15/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Integrated Wealth Management Inc Represented By

Andrew B Levin Robert E Opera Jim D Bauch

Defendant(s):

Ryan Delaney Represented By Paul A Reynolds

John Wong Represented By

David P Bleistein

Plaintiff(s):

J. Michael Issa Represented By Joseph R Ignatuk

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#14.00 Insurance Company of the West 's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Common Fund Doctrine


From: 7/16/19 Also #15 & #16 EH   

Docket 74


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

United states of america Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation

Charles Parker Najah J Shariff


Chapter 11

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Movant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#15.00 CONT Plaintiff's Notice of Additional Funds to Interplead; Declaration of Melissa Davis Lowe in Support Thereof

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 7/30/19 Also #14 & #16 EH       

Docket 87


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

United states of america Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation

Charles Parker Najah J Shariff


Chapter 11

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Movant(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#16.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01286. Complaint by ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation, Another Meridian Company, LLC, Inland Machinery, Inc. against Gotte Electric, Inc., Insurance Company Of The West, Employment Development Department, Trico-Savi Business Park, L.P., a California limited partnership, Angela Denise McKnight, Steven Schonder, Western Alliance Bank, an Arizona corporation, United states of america, Carlin Law Group APC, Ledcor Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

Complaint in Interpleader Nature of Suit: (02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) (Bastian, James)

Trico-Savi Business Park L.P. - Dismissed 12/28/17

Western Alliance Bank, dba Torrey Pines Bank - Dismissed 2/1/18 Gotte Electric, Inc - Dismissed 3/14/18

Ledcor Construction Inc - Dismissed 3/26/18


From: 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19


Also #14 & #15 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

United states of america Represented By Charles Parker Najah J Shariff

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#17.00 (Jointly Administered with Another Meridian Company LLC) CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19


Also #18 & #19 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#18.00 (Jointly Administered with Inland Machinery Inc)

CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19


Also #17 & #19 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#19.00 (Jointly Administered - LEAD CASE)

CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19


Also #17 & #18 EH   

Docket 630


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#20.00 Application for Compensation First Interim Application for Allowance of Fees and Costs By Marshack Hays LLP as the Committee of Unsecured Creditor's General Counsel for David Wood, General Counsel, Period: 9/4/2018 to 7/31/2019, Fee: $100,281.00, Expenses: $1,276.05.


Also #21 - #24


EH   


Docket 455


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

Movant(s):

Committee of Creditors Holding Represented By

David Wood Richard A Marshack

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#21.00 Application for Compensation / First Interim Fee Application of the Patient Care Ombudsman, Jerry Seelig, for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses; Declaration of Jerry Seelig in Support Thereof for Jerry Seelig, Ombudsman Health, Period: 9/13/2018 to 8/25/2019, Fee: $36,146.50, Expenses: $1,061.40.


Also #20 - #24


EH   


Docket 457


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

Movant(s):

Jerry Seelig Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#22.00 Application for Compensation / First Interim Fee Application of Seelig+Cussigh HCO LLC, Consultants to the Patient Care Ombudsman, for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses; Declaration of Richard Cussigh in Support Thereof for Seelig+Cussigh HCO LLC, Consultant, Period: 9/13/2018 to 8/25/2019, Fee: $14,985.00, Expenses: $4,081.00.


Also #20 - #24


EH   


Docket 458


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

Movant(s):

Jerry Seelig Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#23.00 Application for Compensation First Interim Application for Allowance and Payment of Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses of Weiland Golden Goodrich LLP, Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor-in- Possession; Declaration of David M. Goodrich in Support (with Proof of Service) for Weiland Golden Goodrich LLP, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 9/24/2018 to 8/15/2019, Fee: $246,935.00, Expenses:

$4,230.61.


Also #20 - #24


EH   


Docket 459


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#24.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/13/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19, 3/27/19, 5/1/19, 7/30/19


Also #20 - #23


EH   


Docket 4


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

2:00 PM

6:18-18339


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


#25.00 CONT Status Conference re Post Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan From: 5/7/19

Also #26 EH   

Docket 197


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:18-18339


Technology Solutions & Services, Inc., a Californi


Chapter 11


#26.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 11/6/18, 12/18/18, 1/29/19, 3/5/19, 5/7/19 Also #25

EH   


Docket 5


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Technology Solutions & Services, Represented By

Leonard M Shulman Melissa Davis Lowe

11:00 AM

6:12-23460


Jenny Luz Andrino


Chapter 7


#1.00 Debtor's Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f) with American Express Bank, FSB


Also #2 EH       

Docket 39

Tentative Ruling:


9/18/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None


On May 31, 2012, Jenny Andrino ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On September 10, 2012, Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge, and eight days later the case was closed.


On February 8, 2019, the case was reopened for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. No action was timely taken by Debtor, however, and the case was closed on April 10, 2019. On July 19, 2019, the case was reopened a second time for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. On July 22, 2019, Debtor amended certain schedules, including Schedule C. The Court notes that this amendment appears to be improper pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 1009(a) and 9006(b)(1).

Nevertheless, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) refers to an exemption "to which the debtor would have been entitled," and does not seem to impose a requirement that the exemption be properly claimed.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jenny Luz Andrino


Chapter 7


On July 30, 2019, Debtor filed two motions to avoid lien affecting American Express Bank FSP and Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., These motions were subsequently amended on August 1, 2019, and August 12, 2019. On September 3, 2019, the Court set the matters for hearing.


The Court notes that the evidence of the fair market value of the subject real property consists of a Broker’s Opinion that is "as of" May 9, 2019. The proper date for determining the value of the subject real property is, however, the petition date. See, e.g., In re Vokac, 273 B.R. 553 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002); In re Abrahimzadeh, 162 B.R. 676 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1994); In re Finn, 151 B.R. 25 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1992); In re

Sanglier, 124 B.R. 511 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1991); In re Truan, 121 B.R. 9 (Bankr.

S.D. Tex. 1990) ("The appropriate time focus for valuation of Debtors’ equity for a Section 522(f) lien avoidance proceeding is the date on which the petition was filed.").


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario

Movant(s):

Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

Julieann Sayegh Farraj Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jenny Luz Andrino


Priscilla C Solario


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:12-23460


Jenny Luz Andrino


Chapter 7


#2.00 Debtor's Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f) with Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.


Also #1 EH       

Docket 40

Tentative Ruling:


9/18/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None


On May 31, 2012, Jenny Andrino ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On September 10, 2012, Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge, and eight days later the case was closed.


On February 8, 2019, the case was reopened for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. No action was timely taken by Debtor, however, and the case was closed on April 10, 2019. On July 19, 2019, the case was reopened a second time for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. On July 22, 2019, Debtor amended certain schedules, including Schedule C. The Court notes that this amendment appears to be improper pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 1009(a) and 9006(b)(1).

Nevertheless, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) refers to an exemption "to which the debtor would have been entitled," and does not seem to impose a requirement that the exemption be properly claimed.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jenny Luz Andrino


Chapter 7


On July 30, 2019, Debtor filed two motions to avoid lien affecting American Express Bank FSP and Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., These motions were subsequently amended on August 1, 2019, and August 12, 2019. On September 3, 2019, the Court set the matters for hearing.


The Court notes that the evidence of the fair market value of the subject real property consists of a Broker’s Opinion that is "as of" May 9, 2019. The proper date for determining the value of the subject real property is, however, the petition date. See, e.g., In re Vokac, 273 B.R. 553 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002); In re Abrahimzadeh, 162 B.R. 676 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1994); In re Finn, 151 B.R. 25 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1992); In re

Sanglier, 124 B.R. 511 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1991); In re Truan, 121 B.R. 9 (Bankr.

S.D. Tex. 1990) ("The appropriate time focus for valuation of Debtors’ equity for a Section 522(f) lien avoidance proceeding is the date on which the petition was filed.").


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario

Movant(s):

Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

Julieann Sayegh Farraj Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jenny Luz Andrino


Priscilla C Solario


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-18887


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC


Chapter 7


#3.00 Motion to Allow Claim 7 filed by Norman Musselman as Secured, Allowing as an Unsecured Claim


Also #4 EH   

Docket 144

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND:

On September 8, 2015, Norman Musselman, Erwin Seifert, and Gouvis Engineering Consulting Group (individually, "Musselman," "Seifert," and "Gouvis"; collectively, "Petitioning Creditors") filed an involuntary petition against Manors San Bernardino Ave. LLC ("Debtor"). On November 13, 2015, the Court entered an order for relief.

On March 15, 2016, Musselman filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $763,487.22 ("Claim 7"). Claim 7 was identified as secured by certain real property (the "Property") located in Fontana, California, which had an identified value of $3,750,000. On March 18, 2016, Seifert filed a proof of claim for a claim in the amount of $193,307.12 ("Claim 9"). Claim 9 included a secured claim in the amount of $125,239.94, and a priority claim in the amount of $12,475. Claim 9 was identified as being partially secured by the Property.

11:00 AM

CONT...

Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC

Chapter 7

On February 18, 2016, the senior lienholder on the Property, The Alpay Living Trust Dated 10/18/96 ("Creditor"), filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to foreclose on the Property. This motion was opposed by both Petitioning Creditors and the Chapter 7 Trustee. On March 11, 2016, Trustee filed an application to employ real estate broker, and, on June 6, 2016, Trustee filed a complaint against Creditor to determining the validity, priority or extent of the Creditor’s lien. On July 8, 2016, however, the Court granted Creditor relief from the automatic stay.


On May 18, 2017, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise with Creditor. Pursuant to the terms of the compromise, Trustee received $40,000 from Creditor, in return for Trustee’s dismissal of the pending adversary proceeding and Trustee’s renunciation of an interest in the property. [Dkt. No. 81, Ex. 1, Paragraphs 10.1-10.4].


On August 19, 2019, Trustee filed objections to Claim 7 and Claim 9, arguing that the claims were no longer secured. The Court has not received any timely opposition to the objections.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP

11:00 AM

CONT...


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC


Chapter 7

9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


The Court notes that the instant claim objections are cursory and do not contain any legal analysis or argument. The Court further notes that these claim objections do not appear to be properly brought as claim objections, but, instead, are appropriately deemed to be motions to value under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1). Section 506(a)(1) states:


An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest, or that is subject to setoff under section 553

11:00 AM

CONT...


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC

of this title, is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property, or to the extent of the amount subject to setoff, as the case may be, and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest or the amount so subject to setoff is less than the amount of such allowed claim. Such value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction with any hearing on such disposition or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.


Chapter 7


(emphasis added). Here, pursuant to the terms of the settlement reached with creditor, which was approved by the Court on June 15, 2017, Trustee effectively abandoned any interest in the Property. Therefore, the estate no longer having any interest in the Property, the claims of Musselman and Seifert cannot be secured by the Property.


Additionally, notice being proper, the Court deems the failure to Musselman and Seifert to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objections, allowing Claim 7 as an unsecured claim in the amount of $763,487.22, and allowing Claim 9 as a priority unsecured claim in the amount of $12,475 and a generally unsecured claim in the amount of

$193,307.12


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC


Chapter 7

Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC Represented By

Gaurav Datta - INACTIVE -

Movant(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Scott Talkov Frank X Ruggier

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Scott Talkov Frank X Ruggier

11:00 AM

6:15-18887


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC


Chapter 7


#4.00 Motion to Disallow Claims No. 9 filed by Erwin L. Seifert as a Secured Claim and to Allow Said Claim as Unsecured


Also #3 EH   

Docket 146

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND:

On September 8, 2015, Norman Musselman, Erwin Seifert, and Gouvis Engineering Consulting Group (individually, "Musselman," "Seifert," and "Gouvis"; collectively, "Petitioning Creditors") filed an involuntary petition against Manors San Bernardino Ave. LLC ("Debtor"). On November 13, 2015, the Court entered an order for relief.

On March 15, 2016, Musselman filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $763,487.22 ("Claim 7"). Claim 7 was identified as secured by certain real property (the "Property") located in Fontana, California, which had an identified value of $3,750,000. On March 18, 2016, Seifert filed a proof of claim for a claim in the amount of $193,307.12 ("Claim 9"). Claim 9 included a secured claim in the amount of $125,239.94, and a priority claim in the amount of $12,475. Claim 9 was identified as being partially secured by the Property.

11:00 AM

CONT...

Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC

Chapter 7

On February 18, 2016, the senior lienholder on the Property, The Alpay Living Trust Dated 10/18/96 ("Creditor"), filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to foreclose on the Property. This motion was opposed by both Petitioning Creditors and the Chapter 7 Trustee. On March 11, 2016, Trustee filed an application to employ real estate broker, and, on June 6, 2016, Trustee filed a complaint against Creditor to determining the validity, priority or extent of the Creditor’s lien. On July 8, 2016, however, the Court granted Creditor relief from the automatic stay.


On May 18, 2017, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise with Creditor. Pursuant to the terms of the compromise, Trustee received $40,000 from Creditor, in return for Trustee’s dismissal of the pending adversary proceeding and Trustee’s renunciation of an interest in the property. [Dkt. No. 81, Ex. 1, Paragraphs 10.1-10.4].


On August 19, 2019, Trustee filed objections to Claim 7 and Claim 9, arguing that the claims were no longer secured. The Court has not received any timely opposition to the objections.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP

11:00 AM

CONT...


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC


Chapter 7

9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


The Court notes that the instant claim objections are cursory and do not contain any legal analysis or argument. The Court further notes that these claim objections do not appear to be properly brought as claim objections, but, instead, are appropriately deemed to be motions to value under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1). Section 506(a)(1) states:


An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest, or that is subject to setoff under section 553

11:00 AM

CONT...


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC

of this title, is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property, or to the extent of the amount subject to setoff, as the case may be, and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest or the amount so subject to setoff is less than the amount of such allowed claim. Such value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction with any hearing on such disposition or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.


Chapter 7


(emphasis added). Here, pursuant to the terms of the settlement reached with creditor, which was approved by the Court on June 15, 2017, Trustee effectively abandoned any interest in the Property. Therefore, the estate no longer having any interest in the Property, the claims of Musselman and Seifert cannot be secured by the Property.


Additionally, notice being proper, the Court deems the failure to Musselman and Seifert to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objections, allowing Claim 7 as an unsecured claim in the amount of $763,487.22, and allowing Claim 9 as a priority unsecured claim in the amount of $12,475 and a generally unsecured claim in the amount of

$193,307.12


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC


Chapter 7

Manors San Bernardino Ave LLC Represented By

Gaurav Datta - INACTIVE -

Movant(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Scott Talkov Frank X Ruggier

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Scott Talkov Frank X Ruggier

11:00 AM

6:17-15301


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7


#5.00 Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy under Rule 9019


EH       


Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND


On June 24, 2017, Jaspar & Brenda Stevens ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On October 10, 2017, Debtors received a discharge, and the case was closed the next day.


On July 24, 2019, UST filed a motion to reopen the case so that Trustee could investigate a proposed settlement of a lawsuit; the case was reopened the same day. On August 16, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise. The compromise relates to the settlement of the state court litigation initially commenced by Debtors against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. The material terms of the compromise are that Trustee shall execute a request for dismissal of the state court litigation in return for

$50,000.


On August 28, 2019, Debtors filed an opposition to the compromise motion. Debtors argue that the state court lawsuit was properly abandoned upon the conclusion of Debtors’ bankruptcy case, and that, as a result, the claims are not property of the estate and cannot be compromised by Trustee. On September 10, 2019, Trustee filed a reply arguing that the state court litigation was not abandoned.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7


The relevant material facts are not in dispute. Debtors concede that the litigation was not disclosed on their schedules. Trustee concedes that the litigation was disclosed on the statement of financial affairs. The parties dispute revolves around the interpretation of the word "scheduled" in 11 U.S.C. § 554(c).


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 554(c) states: "Unless the court orders otherwise, any property scheduled under section 521(a)(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of this title." "Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under this section and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate." 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1) states


  1. The debtor shall

    1. file


      1. a list of creditors; and

      2. unless the court orders otherwise –

        1. a schedule of assets and liabilities;

        2. a schedule of current income and current expenditures


        3. a statement of the debtor’s financial affairs and, if section 342(b) applies, a certificate –


          1. of an attorney whose name is indicated

            11:00 AM

            CONT...


            Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens

            on the petition as the attorney for the debtor, or a bankruptcy petition preparer signing the petition under section 110(b)(1), indicating that such attorney or the bankruptcy petition preparer delivered to the debtor the notice required by section 342(b); or


          2. if not attorney is no indicated, and no bankruptcy petition preparer signed the petition, of the debtor that such notice was received and read by the debtor;


        4. copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor from any employer of the debtor;


        5. a statement of the amount of monthly net income, itemized to show how the amount is calculated; and


        6. a statement disclosing any reasonably anticipated increase in income or expenditures over the 12- month period following the date of the filing of the petition


Chapter 7



Debtors primarily rely upon In re Hill, 195 B.R. 147 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1996). Trustee implicitly concedes that In re Hill supports Debtors’ position, but Trustee argues that "In re Hill relied on an erroneous statutory interpretation, went against policy and authority in relieving debtors of their obligations and consequences, and was

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

essentially disposed of on other grounds that section 554(c), and should therefore not be followed by this Court." [Dkt. No. 30, pg. 7, lines 22-24]. In re Hill concluded that:


The language of § 521 itself supports a broader reading of "scheduled" in § 554(c), because the paragraph which follows paragraph § 521(1) makes a particular reference to "debtor’s schedule of assets and liabilities." The use of this specific reference strongly suggests that the drafts of the Code will say "schedule of assets and liabilities" when that narrow requirement is intended, and that a reference to § 521(1) is a reference to § 521(1) as a whole.


Id. at 150; see also U.S. ex rel. Fortenberry v. Holloway Group, Inc., 515 B.R. 827 (W.D. Okla. 2014) ("In other words the Court finds that the ‘scheduled’ requirement in § 554(c) refers to all of the disclosures required in § 521(a)(1), including the debtor’s statement of financial affairs.").


On the other hand, Trustee points to multiple cases from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel which held that "[m]entioning an asset in the statement of financial affairs is not the same as scheduling it for purposes of abandonment under § 554(c)." In re Pretscher-Johnson, 2017 WL 2779977 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2017); In re Kayne, 453 B.R. 372 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (same); see also In re Fossey, 119 B.R. 268 (D. Utah 1990) ("The case have held that the word ‘scheduled’ in § 554(c) refers to property listed in the debtor’s Schedule of Assets and Liabilities."). While Debtor has provided a recent Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case which seems to backtrack from the Panel’s earlier position to a degree, as noted by Trustee, the reasoning in In re Tadayon, 2019 WL 1923044 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019) is less than clear, bordering on bizarre.


Noting that the majority of the caselaw on this issue favors the position of the Trustee, the Court is inclined to conclude that the listing of the pending lawsuit in the statement of financial affairs is inadequate to trigger a technical abandonment of that asset pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). While the Court acknowledges that the drafting of § 554(c) is somewhat ambiguous given that the statute could refer to § 521(a)(1)(B)(i), instead of § 521(a)(1) generally,

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

the use of the word "scheduled" must be interpreted in relation to the preparation of "schedules." Divorcing the verb "scheduled" from the noun "schedules" does not appear to be a reasonable approach to statutory interpretation, especially considering that in other sections, the Code includes the phrase "neither listed nor scheduled under section 521(a)(1)." 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).


Turning to the compromise motion, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.


Here, the evidence before the Court is insufficient to assess the "fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" of the compromise. Specifically, the Court notes that the compromise motion does not include any meaningful detail regarding the nature of the state court litigation to be compromise, nor does the motion contain any description of the amount of damages sought in state court. Because of this absence of information, the Court is wholly unable to assess the reasonableness of the $50,000 to be received by the bankruptcy estate.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence as to the

A&C Properties elements.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jasper Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

Joint Debtor(s):

Brenda Louise Murray Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

Movant(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

11:00 AM

6:18-20316


Joel Eggleton and Heather Marie Eggleton


Chapter 7


#6.00 CONT Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation From: 8/21/19

EH   


Docket 26


Tentative Ruling:

9/18/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 1,557.50 Trustee Expenses: $ 126.03


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joel Eggleton Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Heather Marie Eggleton Represented By Sundee M Teeple

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Joel Eggleton and Heather Marie Eggleton


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:09-01235 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#7.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/19,

3/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/10/19


EH      


Docket 1

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

Michael I. Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


David Loughnot Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 7

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K. DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I. Gottfried

Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

John P. Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur Alexander J Suarez

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#8.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

01/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/27/19,

3/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/10/19


EH      


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: ADVANCED TO 9/10/19 AT 3:30 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

Michael I. Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett


Chapter 7

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Larry Day Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Neil M Miller Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

Paul Roman Represented By

Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

Michael I. Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Empire Land, LLC


Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur Alexander J Suarez


Chapter 7

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:08-14592


Empire Land, LLC


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:10-01329 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


#9.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

(Defendant - Empire Partners, Inc) HOLDING DATE


From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/27,

3/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/10/19


EH      


Docket 1

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

Michael I. Gottfried

------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Defendant(s):

Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


Chapter 7

James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Previti Realty Fund, L.P. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

The James Previti Family Trust Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Plaintiff(s):

RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I. Gottfried

Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

John P. Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur Alexander J Suarez

Trustee(s):

Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein

2:00 PM

CONT...


Empire Land, LLC


Paul Hastings Roye Zur Amy Evans

Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:09-37495


Sultan Fakhoury


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01067 Fakhoury et al v. HAZMAT TSDF INC.


#10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01067. Complaint by Sultan Fakhoury, Catherine M Fakhoury against Filter Recycling Services Inc, HAZMAT TSDF INC.. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Marchetti, Albert)


From: 6/26/19, 7/31/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

Albert W Marchetti

Defendant(s):

HAZMAT TSDF INC. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By Gary Swanson

Albert W Marchetti

Plaintiff(s):

Sultan Fakhoury Represented By Albert W Marchetti

Catherine M Fakhoury Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Sultan Fakhoury


Albert W Marchetti


Chapter 7

Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-18295


Eastern Legends CW


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01222 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bobby Lee Associates, LLC


#11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01222. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Bobby Lee Associates, LLC. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Polis, Thomas)


From: 1/16/19, 4/17/19, 6/12/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/2/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

Defendant(s):

Bobby Lee Associates, LLC Represented By Keith S Knochel

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Thomas J Polis

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

2:00 PM

6:17-18295


Eastern Legends CW


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01227 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Wang et al


#12.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01227. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Ming Chung Wang. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas)


From: 1/16/19, 4/12/19, 6/12/19 Also #13

EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED 6/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

Defendant(s):

Ming Chung Wang Pro Se

LiLi Chang Pro Se

JWLC Imports, Inc. Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Thomas J Polis

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Eastern Legends CW


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

2:00 PM

6:17-18295


Eastern Legends CW


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01227 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Wang et al


#13.00 Status Conference RE: [13] Amended Complaint Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee's First Amended Complaint; with Proof of Service by Thomas J Polis on behalf of Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against LiLi Chang, JWLC Imports, Inc., Ming Chung Wang. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:18-ap-01227. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Ming Chung Wang. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Polis, Thomas) Modified on 11/19/2018. filed by Plaintiff Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D) (Polis, Thomas)


Also #12 EH       

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

Defendant(s):

Ming Chung Wang Pro Se

LiLi Chang Pro Se

JWLC Imports, Inc. Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Eastern Legends CW


Thomas J Polis


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01174 Pringle Ch 7 Trustee v. Shenouda et al


#14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01174. Complaint by John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee against Violete Shenouda, Anwar Wagdy. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Complaint: (1) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550; (2) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550; (3) To Avoid Transfer Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 544(a)(3); (4) To Preserve Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 551; (5) For Declaratory Relief; (6) For Imposition of Resulting Trust; (7) For Imposition of Constructive Trust; and (8) For Attorneys' Fees and Costs Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Goodrich, David)


From: 10/31/18, 2/27/19, 6/12/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Violete Shenouda Represented By John J Lewis

Anwar Wagdy Represented By John J Lewis

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:18-12027


Richard M. Thomas


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


#15.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01156. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Amy Williams, Richard M Thomas Jr.. (Charge To Estate) ($350.00). Complaint to: (1) Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfer; (2) Obtain Declaratory Relief as to Ownership of Real Property; and (3) Authorize Sale of Property Owned in Part by Non-Debtor Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (DEFAULT GRANTED AS TO SEVENTH CLAIM 4/19/19)


From: 9/26/18, 11/7/18, 12/12/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19, 4/10/19


EH       


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Defendant(s):

Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Richard M. Thomas


Frank X Ruggier


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

2:00 PM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#16.00 CONT Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order: (1) Establishing Conditions and Procedures for Dismissal of Case Under 11 U.S.C. Section 707(a); and (2)

Approving Payment of Creditor Claims and Administrative Fees

(Only as to Commission) From: 6/5/19, 8/28/19 Also #17 - #19

EH   


Docket 67


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

2:00 PM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#17.00 CONT Application to Employ BHHS Perrie Mundy Realty Group as Real Estate Broker / Agent Declaration of Perrie Mundy in support

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19, 6/5/19, 8/28/19 Also #16 - #19

EH   


Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

2:00 PM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#18.00 CONT Motion for Objection to Claim of Exemptions by Debtor, Julie Lynn Salazar

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 1/16/19, 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19, 6/5/19, 8/28/19 Also #16 - #19

EH   


Docket 30


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

2:00 PM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7


#19.00 CONT Motion by Chapter 7 Trustee for Order Approving Equity Buy Back Agreement

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 12/5/18, 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19, 6/5/19, 8/28/19 Also #16 - #18

EH   


Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

2:00 PM

6:18-17177


Julie Lynn Salazar


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01231 Winegardner Masonry, Inc. v. Salazar


#20.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01231. Complaint by Winegardner Masonry, Inc. against Julie Lynn Salazar. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e)))


From: 1/30/19, 4/10/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Defendant(s):

Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

Plaintiff(s):

Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

2:00 PM

6:18-17431


James Michael Gorman


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01102 Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Commissioner of the S v. Gorman


#21.00 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Under LBR 7055-1 Also #22

EH   


Docket 7

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND


On August 31, 2018, James Gorman ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. The meeting of creditors was originally scheduled for October 3, 2018.


On May 22, 2019, Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Commission of the State of Delaware, in his capacity as the Receive of Ullico Casualty Company ("Plaintiff") filed a motion to extend the deadline to file a non-dischargeability complaint. On June 13, 2019, the Court granted the motion, extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file a non- dischargeability adversary complaint until July 15, 2019.


On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a non-dischargeability adversary complaint (the "Complaint") against Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6). On August 14, 2019, the clerk entered default against Defendant after he failed to respond to the Complaint. On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment. The Court notes that notice and service appear proper.

2:00 PM

CONT...


James Michael Gorman


Chapter 7


The instant complaint relates to Defendant’s conduct while serving as the sole owner, sole director, President, Secretary, and Treasurer of James Gorman Insurance, Inc ("JGI"). JGI entered into a surety bond producer agreement (the "Agreement") with Ullico Casualty Company ("Ullico"). Pursuant to the agreement, JGI was to collect premiums for surety bonds issued by Ullico, deposit the premiums into a premium trust account, and remit the premiums, minus commissions, within forty-five days after the end of the month in which the premiums were due. In connection with the Agreement, Defendant executed a personal guarantee in favor of Ullico,


On January 13, 2012, Ullico gave JGI its 150 days’ notice of intent to terminate the Agreement. Subsequently, JGI refused to remit premiums or provide an accounting or details regarding the premium trust account, leading Ullico to terminate the Agreement for cause on May 21, 2012. According to the complaint, JGI refused to remit premiums in the amount of $870,190.79; Ullico also disputes commissions totaling $468,564.27.


On March 11, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered its Rehabilitation and Injunction Order concerning Ullico, placing Ullico in rehabilitation and appointing a receiver. On May 30, 2013, the Chancery Court entered its Liquidation and Injunction Order with Bar Date, beginning the liquidation of Ullico. Neither JGI nor Defendant subsequently filed a proof of claim in the proceedings in the Delaware Chancery Court.


On January 26, 2016, in Delaware Chancery Court, Plaintiff filed a petition to compel JGI to turnover certain premiums and to provide an accounting. After JGI failed to respond to the petition, more than two years later, on April 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default judgment in Delaware Chancery Court. The Delaware Chancery Court subsequently entered default judgment against JGI in the amount of

$2,804,692.15


DISCUSSION

2:00 PM

CONT...


James Michael Gorman


Chapter 7


  1. Entry of Default



    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55 states that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Local Rule 7055-1 provides further requirements relating to a motion for entry of default judgment, and those requirements have been substantially satisfied here.


  2. Motion for Default Judgment



    1. Proper Service of Summons and Complaint


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(b)(1) states, in part:


      1. ervice may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows:


        1. Upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession.


          Here, it appears that the motion for default judgment has been properly served.

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          James Michael Gorman


          Chapter 7


    2. Merits of Plaintiff’s claim


      Upon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Almog v. Golden Summit Investors Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 12867972 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ("When reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability as true.").


      Here, the complaint includes four causes of action, three relating to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) and one relating to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).


      Regarding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), "[d]efalcation refers to a failure to produce funds entrusted to a fiduciary." In re Bullock, 670 F.3d 1160, 1164 (11th Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has held that defalcation "requires knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of the fiduciary behavior." GINSBERG & MARTIN ON BANKRUPTCY § 11.06 (5th ed. 2019). Second, the elements of an embezzlement claim are: "(1) property rightfully in the possession of a nonowner; (2) nonowner’s appropriation of the property to a use other than which it was entrusted; and (3) circumstances indicating fraud." In re Littleton, 942 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1991).

      And third "[e]mbezzlement differs from larceny only in that the original taking was lawful." In re Dobek, 278 B.R. 496, 509 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2012).


      Regarding Plaintiff’s claim for defalcation, it is not clear that Defendant, as opposed to JGI, was in a fiduciary relationship with Ullico. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that the sole owners of a corporation--that was acknowledged to be acting in a fiduciary relationship to a second corporation – could be themselves considered to be acting in a fiduciary capacity for the second corporation. Double Bogey, L.P. v. Enea, 794 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015). Therefore, it would appear that Plaintiff has not established the applicability of the non-dischageability exception for

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      James Michael Gorman


      Chapter 7

      defalcation in a fiduciary capacity.


      Regarding larceny, it does not appear that Plaintiff has provided any evidence to support a conclusion that JGI or Defendant engaged in a wrongful taking of Ullico’s property. More specifically, it would appear that JGI was intended to receive the premiums pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.


      Regarding embezzlement, however, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately plead its case. Specifically, the Court notes that Plaintiff has alleged that the premiums at issue were: (1) rightfully in the possession of Debtor through his control of JGI; and (2) were appropriated for the personal use of Debtor. Additionally, the Court can reasonably infer an intent to defraud Ullico and Plaintiff from the circumstances described by Plaintiff, given the non-responsiveness of Debtor and JGI to Plaintiff’s attempts over multiple years to get an accounting of the premiums.


      Regarding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), the Ninth Circuit has stated the following:

      Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual debtor may not discharge a debt for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity. The malicious injury requirement is separate from the willful injury requirement. A "willful" injury is a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury. A "malicious" injury involves (1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse."

      In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008).


      Here, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately plead the requirements of a § 523(a)(6) claim. Specifically, the Court notes that Plaintiff has plead a wrongful act, embezzlement, which was done intentionally, which would necessarily cause Ullico injury and for which Defendant has not offered any just cause or excuse. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendant intended to cause an injury to Ullico, or were substantially certain that he would cause an injury, through embezzlement of the premiums held in trust.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      James Michael Gorman


      Chapter 7


    3. Amount of Damages



Here, Plaintiff’s claim was liquidated prepetition and Plaintiff has provided adequate evidence regarding the amount of the claim.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion with respect to the claims for embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) and willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6) and DENY the motion with respect to the claims for larceny and defalcation in a fiduciary capacity.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Michael Gorman Pro Se

Defendant(s):

James Michael Gorman Pro Se

Movant(s):

Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Represented By Todd M Arnold

Plaintiff(s):

Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Represented By Todd M Arnold

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


James Michael Gorman


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-17431


James Michael Gorman


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01102 Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Commissioner of the S v. Gorman


#22.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01102. Complaint by Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, in his capacity as the Receiver of Ullico Casualty Company against James Michael Gorman. fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Arnold, Todd)


From: 9/11/19 Also #21

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

James Michael Gorman Pro Se

Defendant(s):

James Michael Gorman Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Trinidad Navarro, Insurance Represented By Todd M Arnold

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-13174


Daniel Benjamin Verwers


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01107 Blumhardt v. Verwers


#23.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Also #24

EH   


Docket 4

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND


On April 15, 2019, Daniel Verwers ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On July 19, 2019, Daniel Blumhardt ("Plaintiff") filed a non-dischargeability adversary complaint against Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). The Court notes that § 523(a)(2) is not itself a cause of action; the complaint, however, makes clear that it is relying upon § 523(a)(2)(A).


On August 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7012. On September 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition.


DISCUSSION


  1. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Daniel Benjamin Verwers


    Chapter 7

    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6), made applicable in adversary proceedings through FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7012, a bankruptcy court may dismiss a complaint if it fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." In reviewing a FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the trial court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). The trial court need not, however, accept as true conclusory allegations in a complaint or legal characterizations cast in the form of factual allegations. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Hartman v. Gilead Scis., Inc. (In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.), 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).


    To avoid dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must aver in the complaint "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173

    L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). It is axiomatic that a claim cannot be plausible when it has no legal basis. A dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 12(b)(6) may be based either on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008).


    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 9(b), incorporated into bankruptcy proceeding by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7009, "requires a pleader of fraud to detail with particularity the time, place, and manner of each act of fraud, plus the role of each defendant in each scheme." Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405 (9th Cir.

    1991). A cause of action for fraud must be "specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that the have done anything wrong." Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 672 (9th Cir. 1993). "Intent is usually proven by circumstantial evidence or by inferences drawn from the debtor’s conduct." In re Retz, 606 F.3d 1189, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010).

    II. 11 U.S.C. § 523(A)(2)(A)


    As a preliminary matter, Defendant asserts that: "Plaintiff has failed to specify under which section of 523(a)(2) he has chosen to bring his claim. Since the Complaint does not state a specific cause of action, it does not state a claim for which relief can be granted." [Dkt. No. 4, pg. 4]. While Defendant is correct that the complaint has not properly identified the relevant subsection of § 523(a)(2), the Court notes that the complaint references § 523(a)(2)(A) in the body of the complaint, and contains no reference to § 523(a)(2)(B). Therefore, the Court will construe the complaint as

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    Daniel Benjamin Verwers


    Chapter 7

    include a single claim that is brought under § 523(a)(2)(A). 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) provides:

    1. A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt –

        1. for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of creditor, to the extent obtained by –

          1. false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement relating to the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition

      The elements of a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) are:

      1. the debtor made . . . representations;

      2. that at the time he knew they were false;

      3. that he made them with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor;

      4. that the creditor relied on such representations; [and]

      5. that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the misrepresentations having been made.

        In re Sabban, 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010).


        Here, paragraph 18 of the complaint provides adequate detail sufficient to meet the Rule 9 heightened pleading requirement for two specific representations which were made on August 20, 2018, and January 29, 2019. Nevertheless, there are multiple fatal problems with the representations outlined in the complaint. First, the "representations" quoted by Plaintiff do not actually contain representations regarding the progress of the car. The first representation simply states that Defendant has not reached the final body prep stages. The second representations simply states that Defendant will send an update today. It is unclear what material in these excerpts Plaintiff contends is false. Second, both of these representations were made after Plaintiff made his final payment to Defendant. Therefore, it is not temporally possible that these representations could have proximately caused the damages alleged in the complaint.

        Therefore, pursuant to the above, the complaint fails to adequately allege, at a

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Daniel Benjamin Verwers


        Chapter 7

        minimum, the second and fifth elements of a § 523(a)(2)(A) pursuant to Sabban. The remainder of the portions of the complaint referenced in Plaintiff’s opposition that contain alleged representations made by Defendant to Plaintiff (i.e. ¶¶ 12, 16, and 27) are materially deficient with respect to the details required to plead fraud with particularity pursuant to Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405 (9th Cir. 1991).


        TENTATIVE RULING



        The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, DISMISSING the complaint without prejudice.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

        Defendant(s):

        Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

        Movant(s):

        Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

        Plaintiff(s):

        Daniel John Blumhardt Represented By Louis J Sarmiento Denis S Kenny

        2:00 PM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Daniel Benjamin Verwers


        Chapter 7

        Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

        2:00 PM

        6:19-13174


        Daniel Benjamin Verwers


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:19-01107 Blumhardt v. Verwers


        #24.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01107. Complaint by Daniel John Blumhardt against Daniel Benjamin Verwers. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Sarmiento, Louis)


        Also #23 EH   

        Docket 1


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

        Defendant(s):

        Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

        Plaintiff(s):

        Daniel John Blumhardt Represented By Louis J Sarmiento Denis S Kenny

        Trustee(s):

        Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se


        Thursday, September 19, 2019

        Hearing Room

        303


        11:01 AM

        6:18-18614


        Frank Thomas Scott


        Chapter 13


        #70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH      

        Docket 49


        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -


        Debtor(s):


        Party Information

        Frank Thomas Scott Represented By

        Ramiro Flores Munoz

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se


        Monday, September 23, 2019

        Hearing Room

        303


        9:30 AM

        6:17-13012


        Issa M Musharbash


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


        #1.00 Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01138. Complaint by Phillip Musharbash , Violette Musharbash against Issa M Musharbbash , Amal Musharbbash


        EH   


        Docket 1

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

        Defendant(s):

        Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

        Amal Musharbash Pro Se

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

        Plaintiff(s):

        Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

        Violette Musharbash Pro Se

        Trustee(s):

        Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se


        Tuesday, September 24, 2019

        Hearing Room

        303


        9:30 AM

        6:17-13012


        Issa M Musharbash


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


        #1.00 CONT Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01138. Complaint by Phillip Musharbash , Violette Musharbash against Issa M Musharbbash , Amal Musharbbash


        From: 9/23/19 EH   

        Docket 1

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

        Defendant(s):

        Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

        Amal Musharbash Pro Se

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

        Plaintiff(s):

        Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

        Violette Musharbash Pro Se

        Trustee(s):

        Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se


        Wednesday, September 25, 2019

        Hearing Room

        303


        9:30 AM

        6:17-13012


        Issa M Musharbash


        Chapter 7

        Adv#: 6:17-01138 Musharbash et al v. Musharbash et al


        #1.00 CONT Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01138. Complaint by Phillip Musharbash , Violette Musharbash against Issa M Musharbbash , Amal Musharbbash


        From: 9/23/19, 9/24/19 EH   

        Docket 1

        Debtor(s):

        *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 9/24/19

        Party Information

        Issa M Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

        Defendant(s):

        Issa M Musharbash Pro Se

        Amal Musharbash Pro Se

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Amal Issa Musharbash Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

        Plaintiff(s):

        Phillip Musharbash Pro Se

        Violette Musharbash Pro Se

        Trustee(s):

        Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:15-18212


        Michael Joseph Slowinski


        Chapter 13


        #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15470 Legendary Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92555


        MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


        From: 8/27/19 EH   

        Docket 83


        Tentative Ruling:

        8/27/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

        Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Michael Joseph Slowinski Pro Se

        Movant(s):

        Wells Fargo Bank, National Represented By Sean C Ferry Eric P Enciso

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:17-15647


        Omar Enrique Lopez


        Chapter 13


        #2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23502 Wooden Horse Trail, Murrieta, CA 92562-4721


        MOVANT: EAGLE HOME MORTGAGE LLC


        From: 8/20/19 EH       

        Docket 53

        Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

        8/20/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


        Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of adequate protection negotiations. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Omar Enrique Lopez Represented By Dana Travis

        Movant(s):

        Eagle Home Mortgage,LLC Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Omar Enrique Lopez


        Chapter 13

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:17-20240


        Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


        Chapter 13


        #3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15573 Kearny Drive, Adelanto, CA 92301


        MOVANT: FMJM RWL IV TRUST 2017-1


        From: 8/20/19 EH   

        Docket 42

        Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

        8/20/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


        Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the loan modification. Otherwise, it appears that relief from the stay is warranted.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Natona Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Tameiko Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Movant(s):


        Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


        Chapter 13

        FMJM RWL IV Trust 2017-1 Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-10454


        Scott Lawrence and Anita D Lawrence


        Chapter 13


        #4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 24017 Orleans Lane, Murrieta, CA 92562


        MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC


        EH       


        Docket 48


        Tentative Ruling:

        10/1/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13.


        APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Scott Lawrence Represented By Kevin Tang

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Anita D Lawrence Represented By Kevin Tang

        Movant(s):

        PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, and Represented By

        Christina J O

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Scott Lawrence and Anita D Lawrence


        Chapter 13

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-10909


        Candyce Flemister


        Chapter 13


        #5.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15756 Granada Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92551


        MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


        From: 8/20/19 EH       


        Docket 38

        Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

        8/20/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d) (1). GRANT request under ¶ 2 to enforce remedies to repossess and sell the property. GRANT request under ¶ 3 to enter into an agreement with the Debtor. GRANT relief from Rule 4001 stay. GRANT request that, upon entry of the order, that Debtor be considered a borrower, as defined under Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(2)(C), for the purposes of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5. DENY request for adequate protection in the alternative as MOOT.


        APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Debtor(s):


        Candyce Flemister


        Party Information


        Chapter 13

        Candyce Flemister Represented By Christopher Hewitt

        Movant(s):

        Nationstar Mortgage LLC, d/b/a Mr. Represented By

        Gilbert R Yabes Dane W Exnowski Kelsey X Luu

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-11924


        Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule


        Chapter 13


        #6.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13343 Chaparral Road, Whitewater, CA 92282


        MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


        From: 6/25/19, 8/27/19 EH       

        Docket 54

        *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 9/26/19

        Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

        6/25/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


        Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of the arrears, as well as negotiations as to an adequate protection order, if needed.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Don Gurule Represented By

        Christopher Hewitt

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Elaine Gurule Represented By Christopher Hewitt

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Movant(s):


        Don Gurule and Elaine Gurule


        Chapter 13

        Nationstar Mortgage LLC D/B/A Represented By

        Angie M Marth Darlene C Vigil

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-12822


        Cynthia Miller


        Chapter 13


        #7.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15036 Daffodil Circle, Fontana, CA 92336


        MOVANT: WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


        From: 7/16/19, 8/27/19 EH       

        Docket 62

        Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

        7/16/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


        Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of negotiations as to an adequate protection order.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Cynthia Miller Represented By Richard L Barrett

        Movant(s):

        Wilmington Trust, National Represented By Dipika Parmar Jennifer C Wong

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Trustee(s):


        Cynthia Miller


        Nancy L Lee


        Chapter 13

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-16064


        Michael D. Wickham and JoAnn Y. Wickham


        Chapter 13


        #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 26200 Circle Drive, Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352


        MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC


        EH       


        Docket 70

        *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 9/17/19

        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Michael D. Wickham Represented By

        M. Wayne Tucker

        Joint Debtor(s):

        JoAnn Y. Wickham Represented By

        M. Wayne Tucker

        Movant(s):

        Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Darlene C Vigil

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-18504


        Elmer Arnold Tompkins


        Chapter 13


        #9.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 804 Tribune Street, Redlands, CA 92374


        MOVANT: NEWREZ LLC


        From: 9/10/19 EH   

        Docket 32

        *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 9/30/19

        Tentative Ruling:

        9/10/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶ 13.


        APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Elmer Arnold Tompkins Represented By Scott Kosner

        Movant(s):

        NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Represented By Mark S Krause

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Elmer Arnold Tompkins


        Chapter 13

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-20002


        Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


        Chapter 13


        #10.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23631 Rhea Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92557


        MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC DBA MR. COOPER AS SERVICING AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


        From: 8/20/19 EH   

        Docket 42

        Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

        8/20/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

        Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

        Movant(s):

        Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Nancy L Lee

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


        Chapter 13

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:18-20759


        Elida Soto


        Chapter 13


        #11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13692 Bedford Place, Victorville, CA 92392


        MOVANT: NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC


        From: 7/30/19, 8/27/19 EH       

        Docket 40


        Tentative Ruling:

        7/30/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

        Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Elida Soto Represented By

        William G Cort

        Movant(s):

        NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, Represented By

        Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:19-10556


        Timothy Mark Aitken and Esmeralda Aitken


        Chapter 7


        #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2402 South Maple Street, Santa Ana, CA 92707


        MOVANT: DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


        EH    


        Docket 33


        Tentative Ruling:

        10/1/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) based on multiple bankruptcies affecting the property and multiple unauthorized transfers of an interest in the property. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2, and request under ¶ 10 upon recording of a copy of this order or giving appropriate notice of its entry in compliance with applicable nonbankruptcy law.


        The BAP, in In re Fjeldsted, noted the absence of a clear standard for annulment of the automatic stay. 293 B.R. 12, 21 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) ("There is less appellate clarity, however, in enunciating a test for retroactive stay relief. Inconsistent standards have thus developed, which run the gamut from such relief being justified only in ‘extreme circumstances’ to giving the court ‘wide latitude’ to ‘balance the equities’ on a case-by-case basis."). The BAP’s most recent announcement of the standard for annulment of the automatic stay stated the following:


        Determining whether cause exists to annul the stay is a case-by-case inquiry

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Timothy Mark Aitken and Esmeralda Aitken

        based on a balance of the equities. In conducting this inquiry the bankruptcy court, among other factors, should consider whether the creditor knew of the bankruptcy when violating the stay and whether the debtor’s conduct was unreasonable, inequitable or prejudicial to the creditor.


        Chapter 7


        In Fjeldsted, we approved additional factors for consideration in assessing the equities. The twelve nonexclusive factors are: (1) number of filings; (2) whether, in a repeat filing case, the circumstances indicate an intention to delay and hinder creditors; (3) a weighing of the extent of prejudice to creditors or third parties if the stay relief is not made retroactive, including whether harm exists to a bona fide purchaser; (4) the debtor’s overall good faith (totality of circumstances test); (5) whether creditors knew of stay but nonetheless took action, thus compounding the problem; (6) whether the debtor has complied, and is otherwise complying, with the Bankruptcy Code and Rules; (7) the relative ease of restoring parties to the status quo ante; (8) the costs of annulment to debtors and creditors; (9) how quickly creditors moved for annulment, or how quickly debtor moved to set aside the sale or violative conduct; (10) whether, after learning of the bankruptcy, creditors proceeded to take steps in continued violation of the stay, or whether they moved expeditiously to gain relief; (11) whether annulment of the stay will cause irreparable injury to the debtor; and (12) whether stay relief will promote judicial economy or other efficiencies. The Panel in Fjeldsted cautioned that the twelve factors are merely a framework for analysis and not a scorecard, and that in any given case, one factor may so outweigh the others as to be dispositive.


        In re Estavan Capital LLC, 2015 WL 7758494 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted).


        Fjeldsted cautioned that the enumerated factors are not a scorecard and the Fjeldsted standard clearly weigh in favor of annulling the stay here. Specifically, as is noted by Creditor, Debtors did not list the subject real property in their schedules, nor does it

        11:00 AM

        CONT...


        Timothy Mark Aitken and Esmeralda Aitken


        Chapter 7

        appear that Creditor ever received any notice of the bankruptcy filing. Furthermore, the Court notes that there were multiple other bankruptcy filings affecting the subject real property, as well as multiple unauthorized transfers of property, which appear to be part of a scheme to delay or defraud Movant. As a result, it is appropriate to annul the automatic stay to validate the foreclosure sale of the property, a sale which Debtors do not appear to have been aware of, or in any way involved in.


        Additionally, the Court notes that Movant has served the instant motion on the original borrower, who has not filed any opposition, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Timothy Mark Aitken Pro Se

        Joint Debtor(s):

        Esmeralda Aitken Pro Se

        Movant(s):

        Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Robert P Zahradka

        Trustee(s):

        Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons

        11:00 AM

        6:19-11090


        Angela Clarice Atou


        Chapter 13


        #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 11911 Bluff Court, Adelanto, CA 92301


        MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


        EH   


        Docket 53

        *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 9/20/19

        Tentative Ruling:

        - NONE LISTED -

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci

        Movant(s):

        Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, and Represented By

        Christina J O

        Trustee(s):

        Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:19-13292


        Miguel Angel Arredondo


        Chapter 7


        #14.00 CONT Amended Motion (related document(s): 8 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON- BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Shirleen P. Damaske vs. Miguel Angel Arredondo, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, Case Number CIVDS 1906769


        MOVANT: SHIRLEEN P. DAMASKE


        From: 8/20/19


        EH   


        Docket 9

        Tentative Ruling:


        TENTATIVE RULING:

        8/20/2019

        Service: Improper Opposition: None


        The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for Movant to properly serve Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee.


        APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Miguel Angel Arredondo Represented By Daniel King

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Movant(s):


        Miguel Angel Arredondo


        Chapter 7

        Shirleen P Damaske Represented By Michael P O'Sullivan

        Trustee(s):

        Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:19-15974


        Robert Kevin Vasquez


        Chapter 7


        #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota Corolla Sedan VIN: 2T1BURHE9HC860983


        MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES


        EH       


        Docket 8


        Tentative Ruling:

        10/1/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

        § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown. Specifically, the Court notes that the motion does not check the required box for relief under § 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay.


        APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        Robert Kevin Vasquez Represented By Fred Edwards

        Movant(s):

        Consumer Portfolio Services Represented By

        Kristin A Zilberstein

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        Robert Kevin Vasquez


        Chapter 7

        Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:19-16205


        James William Paterson, Jr.


        Chapter 7


        #16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 FORD F150 VIN 1FTEX1CG4JKF59864


        MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


        CASE DISMISSED 8/14/19


        EH   


        Docket 26


        Tentative Ruling:

        10/1/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11.


        APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

        Party Information

        Debtor(s):

        James William Paterson Jr. Represented By Mykhal N Ofili

        Movant(s):

        Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

        Jennifer H Wang

        11:00 AM

        CONT...

        Trustee(s):


        James William Paterson, Jr.


        Chapter 7

        Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

        11:00 AM

        6:19-16393


        Dwane A. Chung


        Chapter 7


        #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2006 Chevrolet Silverado, VIN# 2GCEC19Z46139866


        MOVANT: KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION EH:       


        Docket 12


        Tentative Ruling:

        10/1/2019


        Service is Proper Opposition: None


        11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(1)(A) provides:


        (h)(1) In a case in which the debtor is an individual, the stay provided by subsection (a) is terminated with respect to personal property of the estate or of the debtor securing in whole or in part a claim, or subject to an unexpired lease, and such personal property shall no longer be property of the estate if the debtor fails within the applicable time set by section 521(a)(2) –

        1. to file time any statement of intention required under section 521(a)(2) with respect to such personal property or to indicate in such statement that the debtor will either surrender such personal property or retain it and, if retaining such personal property, either redeem such personal property pursuant to section 722, enter into an agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c) applicable to the debt secured by such personal property, or assume such unexpired lease pursuant to

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Dwane A. Chung

      section 365(p) if the trustee does not do so, as applicable;


      Chapter 7


      (emphasis added). Here, Debtor failed to address the subject collateral in his statement of intention. Therefore, the automatic stay has terminated as a matter of law. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Dwane A. Chung Represented By David A Wiesen

      Movant(s):

      Kinecta Federal Credit Union Represented By Mark S Blackman

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16837


      Joshua John Moore and Siatuolo Moore


      Chapter 7


      #18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 744 Suncup Cir, Hemet, California 92543


      MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC


      EH       


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/1/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joshua John Moore Represented By John D Sarai

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Siatuolo Moore Represented By John D Sarai

      Movant(s):

      PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By Robert P Zahradka

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Joshua John Moore and Siatuolo Moore


      Chapter 7

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17062


      Beatrice Atilano


      Chapter 7


      #19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F8 XEA2 19742


      MOVANT: AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 8

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 9/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Beatrice Atilano Represented By Michael E Clark

      Movant(s):

      AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By

      Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17113


      Tami Sue McLaughlin


      Chapter 7


      #20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 RAM RAM 1500 VIN 1C6RR7MT3GS399552


      MOVANT: TD AUTO FINANCE LLC


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/1/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tami Sue McLaughlin Represented By

      Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

      Movant(s):

      TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17846


      Christopher Lee Sumners


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Personal Property that includes a 2011 Toyota Tacoma


      MOVANT: CHRISTOPHER LEE SUMNERS


      EH   


      Docket 14


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/1/2019


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      Debtor had a prior case dismissed in the previous calendar year for failure to perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the court. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) (3)(C)(i)(II)(cc), the instant bankruptcy case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C), the Court requires "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut the presumption of bad faith. Here, Debtor has provided no evidence regarding his new financial situation, only saying that his income from a new business is consistent. Because this evidence fails to meet the heightened standard imposed by

      § 362(c)(3)(C), the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Christopher Lee Sumners Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Christopher Lee Sumners Represented By Paul Y Lee

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Christopher Lee Sumners


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18004


      Marcus Lee Henderson


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1428 North San Diego Place, Ontario, California 91764


      MOVANT: EAI CAPITAL LLC


      EH   


      Docket 6


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/1/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4) based on multiple unauthorized quitclaim deeds filed less than two weeks prepetition, and based on the fact that the original borrowers had seven unsuccessful bankruptcy filings since 2011, indicating a scheme to delay or defraud creditors. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marcus Lee Henderson Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      EAI CAPITAL LLC Represented By Julian K Bach

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Marcus Lee Henderson


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18038


      Koppi V. Beskid


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 2010 Hyundai Accent


      MOVANT: KOPPI V. BESKID


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/1/2019


      Service is Improper Opposition: None


      Pursuant to the self-calendaring procedures of Judge Houle, debtors who wish to have a motion to continue or impose the automatic stay heard on shortening notice are required to serve secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, Debtor has not complied with this service requirement. Additionally, the Court notes that pages one and three of the motion, each of which prompt Debtor to identify the affected secured creditor(s), do not identify any secured creditors. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Koppi V. Beskid Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

      Movant(s):

      Koppi V. Beskid Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Koppi V. Beskid


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18105


      Jason Benjamin Marlow and Linda Sue Marlow


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 8939 Dahlia Dr. Corona CA 92883


      MOVANT: JASON BENJAMIN MARLOW AND LINDA SUE MARLOW


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jason Benjamin Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Linda Sue Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Movant(s):

      Jason Benjamin Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Linda Sue Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17843


      Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam


      Chapter 7


      #24.10 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 37625 Early Ln., Murrieta, CA 92563


      MOVANT: AARON D. WEINFIELD AND SHELITA C. WEINFIELD


      EH   


      Docket 16


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Aaron D. Weinfield and Shelita C. Represented By

      Scott Andrews

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16941


      Latacia D Sanders


      Chapter 13


      #24.20 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 27757 Aspel Rd. #1117, Menifee, CA 92585


      MOVANT: ANTELOPE RIDGE APARTMENTS, LLC


      EH   


      Docket 31


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Latacia D Sanders Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      ANTELOPE RIDGE Represented By Scott Andrews

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #25.00 (Jointly Administered - LEAD CASE - 19-13127 MH)

      Motion to Approve Cash Management System EH   

      Docket 162

      Tentative Ruling:

      10/1/19

      BACKGROUND


      On April 12, 2019, Woodcrest Ace Hardware, Inc. ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 11 voluntary petition. On May 2, 2019, the Court authorized use of cash collateral on an interim basis. On June 19, 2019, the Court extended authorization to use cash collateral. This authorization was extended a second time on September 12, 2019.


      After denying a motion for substantive consolidation, the Court ordered, on July 12, 2019, that Debtor’s case be jointly administered with the cases of 9 Fingers, Inc. (19-13130), P&P Hardware, Inc. (19-13131), Riverside Ace Hardware, Inc.

      (19-13132), and Wildomar Ace Hardware, Inc. (19-13133) (collectively, "Debtors"). The Court has authorized the employment of Brass Tax Ryder Professional Group, Inc. as accountants for Debtors, and Rosenstein & Associates as counsel for Debtors.


      On September 10, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to approve cash management system. The Court has not received any opposition to the motion.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11

      In the motion, Debtors assert that Debtor is used as a "common paymaster" for the related debtors. More specifically,


      Each of the respective Affiliated Debtors transfers sufficient funds to Woodcrest Ace’s payroll account each payroll period to cover that particular debtors individual payroll obligations, including payroll taxes, workers compensation, health insurance, and any third party payroll servicing fees (e.g. Paychex Payroll services). Woodcrest Ace in turn then issues the payroll and related payments to the respective employees and third parties on behalf of each of the debtors from Woodcrest Ace’s payroll account.


      [Dkt. No. 162, pg. 6, lines 20-28].


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court having reviewed the motion, notice appearing proper, good cause appearing, and noting the absence of any opposition, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h), the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, authorizing Debtors to continue to use their cash management system.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-17537


      Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #26.00 CONT Emergency Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Authorization to use Cash Collateral


      From: 9/4/19 Also #27

      EH       


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

      Movant(s):

      Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

      2:00 PM

      6:19-17537


      Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #27.00 Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And

      (2) Requiring Status Report Also #26

      EH   


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

      10:00 AM

      6:19-14673


      Daniel Alfred Fox


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 CONT Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Alaska USA Federal Credit Union re 2015 Chevrolet Camaro


      From: 9/11/19 EH   

      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Daniel Alfred Fox Represented By Yolanda Flores-Burt

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:11-21328


      Moses Vasi Savar and Estrella Nina Savar


      Chapter 7


      #2.00 Motion to Avoid JUDICIAL LIEN with Pacific Labor Source, Inc.


      EH   


      Docket 28


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Moses Vasi Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Estrella Nina Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Movant(s):

      Moses Vasi Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen

      Estrella Nina Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:12-33455


      Sergio Reyes and Maria De Los Angeles Reyes


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 154

      Tentative Ruling:

      TENTATIVE RULING


      10/02/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountants have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $25,197.30 Trustee Expenses: $223.09


      Attorney Fees: $40,127.00 Attorney Costs: $822.05


      Accountant Fees: $3,444.00 Accountant Costs: $396.50


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Sergio Reyes and Maria De Los Angeles Reyes


      Chapter 7

      Sergio Reyes Represented By

      Patricia A Mireles

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria De Los Angeles Reyes Represented By Patricia A Mireles

      Trustee(s):

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy

      Anthony A Friedman

      11:00 AM

      6:15-10709


      Crossfire Marketing Group LLC


      Chapter 7


      #4.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH

      Docket 47


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/02/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $1,843.17 Trustee Expenses: $132.27


      Accountant Fees: $6,622.50 Accountant Costs: $30.00


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Crossfire Marketing Group LLC Represented By

      Douglas A Plazak

      Trustee(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-11615


      Adam M Ramos


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 34

      Tentative Ruling:

      TENTATIVE RULING


      10/02/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Commission: $1,250.00


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adam M Ramos Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13319


      Golda Morris


      Chapter 7


      #6.00 Motion to Approve Compromise Under Rule 9019 EH   

      Docket 31

      Tentative Ruling:

      10/02/19

      BACKGROUND


      On April 19, 2018, Golda Morris ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On Form 106A/B—Schedule A/B, Debtor stated she has a wrongful death claim for her husband valued at $50,000 and an exemption of that same sum in her Schedule C. U.S.C. §522(d)(11)(B).


      On January 9, 2018, Debtor had filed a wrongful death suit, alleging that Debtor’s husband died from adult abuse and neglect at the hands of Orange County, Inc dba Kindred Hospital, et al ("Kindred Hospital"). The other plaintiffs in the suit were the two children of Debtor’s deceased husband. The Debtor was represented by Lanzone Morgan, LLP ("Lanzone Morgan") in the wrongful death suit.


      John P. Pringle ("Trustee") was appointed Chapter 7 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate. On October 2, 2018, Trustee filed an application to employ Lanzone Morgan as special counsel to pursue the wrongful death suit:


      "Compensation to be paid on a contingency fee equal to forty percent (40%) of any amount recovered…reimburse all cost and expenses incurred by [Lanzone Morgan] including by not limited to, process servers’ fees…[Lanzone Morgan] shall send Trustee periodic statements for costs incurred."

      On October 23, 2018, the Court approved the employment of Lanzone Morgan as

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Golda Morris


      Chapter 7

      special counsel.

      The last day to file claims was on December 3, 2018. The claims properly filed amount to $11,193.63 and number two claims: Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, totaling $10,284.89, and Yaser A. Slayyeh M.D., Inc, totaling $908.74.


      A settlement has been reached between the plaintiffs and the defendants of the wrongful death claim. Plaintiffs will receive $300,000.00 and release defendants from all liabilities and waive all rights under Cal. Civ. Code §1542. The Trustee then proceeded to file a Motion to Compromise on August 26, 2019.


      Pursuant to learning of the settlement in the wrongful death claim, Medicare requested a payment of services provided to the Debtor’s decease husband, totaling

      $4,956.75. Medicare is required to recover, pursuant to U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2), any overpayment if payment of a "settlement, judgment, award, or other payment has been or could be made."

      The pertinent facts of the compromise as follows:



      Settlement Amount

      $300,000.00

      Less: Lanzone Morgan’s Fees (40%)

      $120,000.00

      Less: Lanzone Morgan’s Costs

      $14,991.19

      Less: Medicare Demand for Payment

      $4,956.75

      Total Net Recovery

      $160,052.06

      Less: 50% to Decease Husband’s Children

      $80,26.03

      Less: Debtor’s Claimed Exemption

      $50,000.00

      Net to Estate

      $30,026.03


      The compromise, also, releases Lanzone Morgan from any further responsibilities of the wrongful death suit if the funds are distributed as set forth above.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Golda Morris


      Chapter 7


      DISCUSSION


      1. Legal Standard for Approving Compromise


        Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), Debtor has all the rights and duties of a trustee. Rule 9019(a) authorizes the bankruptcy court to approve a compromise or settlement on the trustee's motion and after notice and a hearing. The bankruptcy court must consider all "factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise." Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968). In other words, the bankruptcy court must find that the settlement is "fair and equitable" in order to approve it. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Props.), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986).

        In conducting this inquiry, the bankruptcy court must consider the following factors:

        1. the probability of success in the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises.


          Id.

          The bankruptcy court enjoys broad discretion in approving a compromise

          because it "is uniquely situated to consider the equities and reasonableness [of

          it] " United States v. Alaska Nat'l Bank (In re Walsh Construction, Inc.), 669 F.2d

          1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1982). As stated in A & C Props.:

          The purpose of a compromise agreement is to allow the trustee and the creditors to avoid the expenses and burdens associated with litigating sharply contested and dubious claims. The law favors compromise and not litigation for its own sake, and as long as the bankruptcy court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed.

          Id. (citations omitted).

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Golda Morris


          Chapter 7


      2. Requested Payment to Medicare


        The Court is of the opinion that the request from Medicare payment is not a lien. "A lien is a charge imposed in some mode other than by a transfer in trust upon specific property by which it is made security for the performance of an act." Cal Civ. Code §2872.


        The Trustee cites one case, In re Dickinson, in his effort to proclaim that payment request from Medicare is a lien. 24 B.R. 547 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1982). The Court recognizes that liens may be created by contract of the parties or by operation of law. However, the Trustee neither provided any evidence describing such a contract between the decease and Medicare nor did Medicare follow the procedures to create a lien.


        In the alternative, the Trustee implies that it would be against public policy to require Medicare to perfect its claim on the proceeds of a settlement. When Congress required Medicare to reclaim medical care it paid for related to the recovery of a case, it did not stipulate that a lien was created in the proceeds recovered in the case. 42

        U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2). Furthermore, Congress gave Medicare the right to bring a cause of action, collecting double damages against the defendant. 42 U.S.C. §1395y(b)(2) (B)(iii). Congress provided Medicare with all the rights it thought was necessary to recover such payments. If Medicare, with all the rights it was given, fails to perfect its claim, it is "out of the money" like any other unsecured creditor. It appears it would be against public policy to give a creditor substantial more rights than Congress envisioned. Nonetheless, as discussed below, the Court will allow payment to Medicare as part of the settlement.


      3. Motion to Compromise


      The evidence presented reflects that the compromise is in the best interest of the bankruptcy estate. It prevents Medicare and the estate to engage in costly litigation or negotiation. The compromise pays all the non-creditors involved, indirectly or directly, in the wrongful death suit. Furthermore, because the affected creditors are expected to receive substantial distribution, without the time, expense, and uncertainty

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Golda Morris


      Chapter 7

      inherent in continuing the wrongful death suit, the compromise motion appears to clearly be in the best interests of the estate. For these reasons, and for only these reasons stated in the motion, the Court finds that the A&C Properties factors have been satisfied, and the Court is inclined to APPROVE the compromise.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, APPROVING the compromise in its entirety subject to the concerns raised in the Order Setting Hearing on Compromise of Controversy.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Golda Morris Represented By

      Christopher Hewitt

      Movant(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Toan B Chung

      Trustee(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Toan B Chung

      11:00 AM

      6:19-12225


      Nathaniel James Cardiel


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Undisclosed and Unsecured Creditor, OGara Coach Companys Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Re: Reopen Debtors Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case Pursuant to Section 350 of the Bankruptcy Code (Including Reimposing the Automatic Stay) Due to Debtors Material and Fraudulent Non-disclosures


      EH   


      Docket 21

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 9/17/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nathaniel James Cardiel Represented By Sevan Gorginian

      Movant(s):

      O'Gara Coach Company, LLC Represented By Thomas J Polis

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-14440


      Herber Morales and Ana L Morales


      Chapter 7


      #8.00 Motion for order extending time to file reaffirmation agreement and to defer entry of discharge


      EH   


      Docket 22

      Tentative Ruling: 10/02/19

      BACKGROUND


      On May 22, 2019, Herber Morales and Ana L. Morales (collectively, the "Debtors") filed for Chapter 7 voluntary petition. One of the properties listed on Debtors’ Schedule A/B is a single-family home. As of the date of the motion, Debtors still owe $352,698.00 and would like to reaffirm the debt.


      Debtors claim that they need additional time to prepare, execute, and file a reaffirmation agreement between themselves and Nationstar, the creditor whose debt is secured by the property. Debtors want an additional thirty days from the granting of this motion to extend the entry of discharge in order to file a reaffirmation agreement.


      DISCUSSION


      "A reaffirmation agreement and a motion for approval of the reaffirmation agreement under 11 U.S.C. §524 must be filed by the debtor or creditor within 60 days following the conclusion of the first meeting of creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 341(a), unless otherwise ordered by the court." LBR 4008-1. In this situation, the last day to file a reaffirmation agreement, unless other wise ordered by the court, was on August 26, 2019. Furthermore, "the [C]ourt shall forthwith grant the discharge, except that the court shall not grant the discharge if…a motion to enlarge the time to file a reaffirmation agreement under Rule 4008(a) is pending. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004(c)(1) (J).

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Herber Morales and Ana L Morales


      Chapter 7


      The Court agrees with the Debtors. The extension for thirty days would not prejudice any party, and an extension would allow Debtors a better opportunity to retain their home through a reaffirmation agreement.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion requested and provide an extension of the date of discharge to no earlier than November 4, 2019.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to file an order within 7 days.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Herber Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ana L Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Herber Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Ana L Morales Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-15007


      Robert Wayne Young


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 CONT Motion For Order Compelling Turnover Of Real Property Pursuant To 11

      U.S.C. § 542(a) From: 10/2/19 EH   

      Docket 19

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      MOTION FOR TURNOVER

      NO OPPOSITION

      BACKGROUND


      On June 8, 2019, Robert Young ("Debtor") filed his voluntary Ch. 7 petition. Within Debtor’s schedules, Debtor disclosed his possession of a home at 734 Grassy Meadow Dr., San Jacinto, CA 92825 (the "Property), with a scheduled stated value of

      $324,000. Debtor has claimed a $100,000 exemption in the property under Cal. Civ. Code § 704.730. The Property is burdened by scheduled debts totaling $206,681 representing the 1st Mortgage held by Darrington Mortgage in the amount of $180,000 and the 2nd Mortgage held by Novad Management Consulting LLC/HUD in the amount of $55,681.00. There is also a scheduled lien for solar panels in the amount of

      $40,000 which is held by Clean Energy Ygrene. None of those parties have yet filed claims in the case.


      On August 1, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") filed this motion for turnover of the Property, on the basis of their belief that there may be equity within the Property. Trustee did not file any additional evidence or explanation in support of their motion, besides a statement that they were informed and believed that there was net equity in the estate. In addition, Trustee also declared that Debtor and Debtor’s counsel had been uncooperative in preparing the Property for a potential future sale.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Robert Wayne Young


      Chapter 7


      DISCUSSION



      Trustee filed his motion for turnover under § 542 with the stated intent of selling the Property under § 363(f). The benefit of the Property to the estate is thus the net equity which could be obtained through such a sale. However, the Trustee has not put forward any evidence of net equity in the property, besides a statement that they were informed and believed there was. This appears to be referring to Debtor’s schedules.


      Upon review of Debtor’s schedules, it is unclear if net equity exists in the Property at this time. Debtor’s Schedule A lists the value of the Property as $324,000, and his Schedule D lists the combined mortgages burdening the Property as $206,681. His Schedule D also lists a $40,000 lien for solar panels which likely further burden the Property. In addition, Debtor has also claimed a $100,000 exemption pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 704.730 in the equity in the Property in his Schedule C. This adds up to a total of $366,681 in potential encumbrances and claims on the equity of the Property, whose value is currently listed at $324,000.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      8/28/2019


      SERVICE: PROPER OPPOSITION: NONE.

      While the Court understands the frustration of the Trustee as to Debtor’s failure to

      cooperate with the potential marketing and sale of the Property, the Court is inclined to find that more evidence is needed at this time as to whether there is any net equity in the Property to warrant turnover.

      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Debtor(s):


      Robert Wayne Young


      Chapter 7

      Robert Wayne Young Represented By Cynthia A Dunning

      Movant(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Ryan S Riddles

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Ryan S Riddles

      2:00 PM

      6:17-18295


      Eastern Legends CW


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01222 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bobby Lee Associates, LLC


      #10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01222. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Bobby Lee Associates, LLC. (Charge To Estate). Nature of Suit: (11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Polis, Thomas)


      From: 1/16/19, 4/17/19, 6/12/19, 9/18/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Eastern Legends CW Represented By Lawrence B Yang

      Defendant(s):

      Bobby Lee Associates, LLC Represented By Keith S Knochel

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

      Thomas J Polis

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Thomas J Polis

      2:00 PM

      6:17-20092


      Mark Bastorous


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:19-01080 United States Trustee for the Central District of v. Bastorous et al


      #11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01080. Complaint by United States Trustee for the Central District of California, Region 16 against Mark Bastorous, Bernadette Shenouda. (Fee Not Required). with adversary cover sheet Nature of Suit: (41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e))) (Green, Everett)


      From: 7/17/19, 8/28/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

      Defendant(s):

      Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

      Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

      Plaintiff(s):

      United States Trustee for the Central Represented By

      Everett L Green

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Mark Bastorous


      Chapter 7

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

      2:00 PM

      6:16-16720


      Luevina Henry


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


      #12.00 Motion in Limine by Defendants Real Time Resolutions, Inc. and The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certification Holders of CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-D for an Order to exclude evidence to be offered by Plaintiff at trial


      EH   


      Docket 192


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Luevina Henry Pro Se

      Defendant(s):

      Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

      THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

      Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

      Tavares Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Luevina Henry


      Chapter 13

      THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker Renee M Parker James F Lewin James F Lewin

      Plaintiff(s):

      Luevina Henry Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-16720


      Luevina Henry


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


      #13.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01187. Complaint fld 8-25-17 - Dischargeability, willful and malicious injury, validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property, injunctive relief


      From: 8/28/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Luevina Henry Pro Se

      Defendant(s):

      Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

      THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

      Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

      Tavares Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Luevina Henry Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Luevina Henry


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-14440


      Michael Douglas Guerino and Xochitl Rodriguez Guerino


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 Motion to vacate dismissal based on Mistake, Inadvertance, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect and to Reinstate their Chapter 13 Case


      EH   


      Docket 106

      *** VACATED *** REASON: HEARING ADVANCED TO 9/19/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael Douglas Guerino Represented By

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Xochitl Rodriguez Guerino Represented By

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      Movant(s):

      Michael Douglas Guerino Represented By

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      Xochitl Rodriguez Guerino Represented By

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      J.D. Cuzzolina

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13810


      Mario Portillo


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Motion to Disallow Claims of Pinnacle Credit Services (Claim 3-1) EH   

      Docket 39

      Tentative Ruling:

      10/3/19

      BACKGROUND:


      On May 4, 2018, Mario Portillo ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On August 9, 2018, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


      On June 28, 2018, Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $2,067.51 ("Claim 3"). On August 22, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 3. Debtor argues that Claim 3 is barred by the statute of limitations. Creditor did not file any opposition.


      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Mario Portillo


      Chapter 13

      9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:


      11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


    2. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


      1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the

11:00 AM

CONT...


Mario Portillo

debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


Chapter 13


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 3 appears to be based on an overdue phone bill. Therefore, it appears that Claim 4 fits within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337, and that the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of October 16, 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 3 is unenforceable.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 3 in its entirety..


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mario Portillo Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Mario Portillo


Chapter 13

Mario Portillo Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz Rebecca Tomilowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13146


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 5 by Claimant Specialized Loan Servicing LLC


From: 8/22/19 Also #4 & #5 EH    

Docket 30

Tentative Ruling:

8/22/2019

BACKGROUND:

On April 15, 2019, Mark & Elizabeth Swartz ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 21, 2019, The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as successor Indenture trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association for CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-F ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $157,959.06 ("Claim 5").

On July, 2019, Debtors filed an objection to Claim 5. Debtors argue that the information filed in support of Claim 5 is inadequate pursuant to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and that, as a result, Creditor has failed to meet its burden of proof.

11:00 AM

CONT...

Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

Chapter 13

APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


Local Rule 3007-1(b)(2) provides that a "claim objection must be served on the claimant at the address disclosed by the claimant in its proof of claim and at such other addresses and upon such parties as may be required by FRBP 7004 and other applicable rules. Here, the claim objection states that it was served at "8749 Lucent Blvd." rather than at the address listed on Claim 5, "8742 Lucent Blvd."


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for proper service on Creditor.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Movant(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Joseph A Weber

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

Fritz J Firman Fritz J Firman


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13146


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 5 by Claimant Specialized Loan Servicing LLC


Also #3 & #5 EH       

Docket 44

Tentative Ruling:

10/3/2019

BACKGROUND:

On April 15, 2019, Mark & Elizabeth Swartz ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 21, 2019, The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as successor Indenture trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association for CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-F ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $157,959.06 ("Claim 5").

On July 10, 2019, Debtors filed an objection to Claim 5. Debtors argued that the information filed in support of Claim 5 is inadequate pursuant to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and that, as a result, Creditor has failed to meet its burden of proof. At the hearing of August 22, 2019, the Court noted that there appeared to be an error on the proof of service which resulted in Creditor’s notice address being misstated. For that reason, the Court continued the matter for proper service.

11:00 AM

CONT...

Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

Chapter 13

On August 30, 2019, Debtors filed a renewed objection to Claim 5. The Court notes that notice and service are now proper.

APPLICABLE LAW:

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.

When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.

11:00 AM

CONT...

Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

Chapter 13

ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  1. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(2) identifies certain required information that a claimant must attach to a proof of claim in order for the claim to be afforded prima facie validity. In particular, the Court notes that Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) and (C) provide requirements related to the itemization of non-principal amounts and escrow amounts, respectively.


The Court finds Debtors’ assertion that the supporting information is inadequate to be well-founded. The mortgage proof of claim attachment includes the following information. Part 2 identifies a principal balance of $98,982.98, interest due of

$55,486.25, and fees and costs of $3,489.83. Part 3 identifies a pre-petition arrears of

$87,692.60, of which $84,202.77 was principal and $3,489.83 was the aforementioned costs. And Part 4 asserts that the month payment includes $607.39 for principal and interest and $549.90 for escrow.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13

The two figures which do not appear to be justified in the supporting documentation are the $55,486.25 in interest and the $549.90 monthly payment for escrow. The Court notes that the loan payment history spreadsheet provided by Creditor does not contain any itemization for interest or escrow, and, furthermore, the entire column relating to accrued interest balance and accrued escrow balance is zeroed out.


Because Creditor has failed to separate principal, interest, and escrow, as directed by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(2), and, noting that Debtors have declared that there is no escrow account relating to the second mortgage, the Court is unable to determine the validity or amount of the prepetition default identified in column G of the loan payment history. The Court has also not been provided with any itemization or calculation of the interest amount, alleged to be $55,486.25.


As a result, the Court is inclined to reduce Claim 5 to $102,472.81, representing the principal balance and fees and costs due in part 2 of the loan payment history, with a prepetition arrearage amount of $0.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Movant(s):

Mark G Swartz Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman


Chapter 13

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman Fritz J Firman

PYOD LLC Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13146


Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 7/11/19, 8/22/19

Also #3 & #4 EH    

Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13651


Juan Manuel Robles


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19, 8/22/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juan Manuel Robles Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13768


Daniel Ray Love and Fatin Badawi Love


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19, 8/22/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Ray Love Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Joint Debtor(s):

Fatin Badawi Love Represented By

Raj T Wadhwani

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 4 by Claimant CIT BANK, N.A..


From: 9/5/19 Also #9

EH   


Docket 22

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12/5/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Movant(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#9.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19, 9/5/19

Also #8 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14325


Martin Ontiveros


Chapter 13


#10.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/22/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Martin Ontiveros Represented By Allan O Cate

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14586


Jose Luis Garcia and Yanira Valdez


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/22/19, 9/19/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Luis Garcia Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Yanira Valdez Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15328


Angel Victoriano and Maura Guzman


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/19/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Angel Victoriano Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Maura Guzman Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15330


Charles Dennis West


Chapter 13


#13.00 Motion to Disallow Claims 4 of Navy Federal Credit Union Also #14

EH   


Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

10/3/19

BACKGROUND:


On June 18, 2019, Charles West ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition.


On July 23, 2019, Navy Federal Creditor Union ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $8,276.15 ("Claim 4"). On August 26, 2019, Debtor filed an objection to Claim 4. Debtor argues that Claim 4 is barred by the statute of limitations. Creditor did not file any opposition.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim,

11:00 AM

CONT...


Charles Dennis West


Chapter 13

that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


(b) Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—

11:00 AM

CONT...


Charles Dennis West

(1) such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


Chapter 13


CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337 (2016) provides a statute of limitations of four years for debts founded on written contracts, book accounts, accounts stated based upon account in writing, "balance of mutual, open and current account in writing," and rescission of written contract. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the claim is unenforceable. See e.g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (1938).


Claim 4 is based on money loaned and Claim 4 includes, as an attachment, the written loan agreement. Therefore, Claim 4 fits within the category established by CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 337, and the statute of limitations is four years. The proof of claim identifies a last payment date of December 22, 2010. This is more than four years prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case, and, therefore, Claim 4 is unenforceable.


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 4 in its entirety..


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Dennis West Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Movant(s):


Charles Dennis West


Erika Luna


Chapter 13

Charles Dennis West Represented By Erika Luna

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15330


Charles Dennis West


Chapter 13


#14.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/19/19

Also #13 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Charles Dennis West Represented By Erika Luna

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15689


Jerson Alonzo and Lizeth Alonzo


Chapter 13


#15.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/19/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jerson Alonzo Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Joint Debtor(s):

Lizeth Alonzo Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15755


Steven Martinez-Large and Amber Martinez-Large


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Steven Martinez-Large Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Joint Debtor(s):

Amber Martinez-Large Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15773


Joe Medina


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joe Medina Represented By

Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15777


Cathryn A. Schioppi


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cathryn A. Schioppi Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15789


Rosemm Roldan Jimenez


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rosemm Roldan Jimenez Represented By Raymond J Seo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15812


Carlos Zelaya and Gabriela Zelaya


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carlos Zelaya Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Gabriela Zelaya Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15816


Sally Marie Smith


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sally Marie Smith Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15822


Marco A Vidal


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Marco A Vidal Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15857


Aron Christopher Wright


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Aron Christopher Wright Represented By Tom A Moore

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15859


Delmer Sylvester and Susan Sylvester


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Delmer Sylvester Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Susan Sylvester Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15887


Nora Noemy Cobas


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nora Noemy Cobas Represented By Patricia A Mireles

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15920


Charles Oard Cheathem


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/23/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Oard Cheathem Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15951


Jennifer Wilder


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jennifer Wilder Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15958


Gwendolyn Onuekwusi


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/13/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gwendolyn Onuekwusi Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15963


Ramon H. Ventura, Jr. and Clementine Ventura


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ramon H. Ventura Jr. Represented By

Patricia M Ashcraft - SUSPENDED BK -

Joint Debtor(s):

Clementine Ventura Represented By

Patricia M Ashcraft - SUSPENDED BK -

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15979


James Meyer


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 7/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

James Meyer Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15980


Jonathon Keith Stoner and Jacqueline Belinda Stoner


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jonathon Keith Stoner Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Jacqueline Belinda Stoner Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15995


June A. Bitanga and Maria Teresita A Bitanga


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

June A. Bitanga Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Teresita A Bitanga Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16050


Juan Figueroa and Nancy Figueroa


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Juan Figueroa Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Joint Debtor(s):

Nancy Figueroa Represented By

Inez Tinoco-Vaca

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16065


Iris M Gonzalez


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Iris M Gonzalez Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16067


Julie Anne Meyer


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Julie Anne Meyer Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16068


John B Jensen


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John B Jensen Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16072


Sara Rolston


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sara Rolston Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16078


Carmen Abel


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carmen Abel Represented By

Amanda G Billyard

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16298


Juan Antonio Clement and Karen Lynn Clement


Chapter 13


#39.00 CONT Motion to Avoid Junior Lien with Aspen Properties Group, LLC

(Holding Date) From: 8/22/19 EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

8/21/2019


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter to allow Creditor adequate time to conduct an appraisal of the subject real property.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Juan Antonio Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Karen Lynn Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Juan Antonio Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Karen Lynn Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...


Juan Antonio Clement and Karen Lynn Clement


Chapter 13

11:00 AM

6:19-16782


Raymond Edward Reeley


Chapter 13


#40.00 Motion by United States Trustee to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case with a Re-filing Bar


EH   


Docket 9

Tentative Ruling:

10/3/19

BACKGROUND


On August 2, 2019, Raymond Reeley ("Debtor") filed a skeletal Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtor had two bankruptcies filings in the previous year. The first, a Chapter 13 filed in August 2018, was dismissed for failure to file case commencement documents. The second, a Chapter 13 filed in May 2019, was dismissed for failure to file case commencement documents. The petition omits the filing from 2018.


The balance of Debtor’s case commencement documents were due August 16, 2019. Debtor did not file the balance of the case commencement documents. On August 19, 2019, UST filed a motion to dismiss the case with a one-year bar to refiling.


DISCUSSION



Regarding UST’s request to dismiss the case, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) provides a non- exhaustive list of grounds for dismissal of a Chapter 13 case. Sections 1307(c)(1), (3), (4), and (9) all provide grounds to dismiss a Chapter 13 case when the debtor files a

11:00 AM

CONT...


Raymond Edward Reeley


Chapter 13

skeletal petition and fails to take any further action to prosecute the case. Section 1307(c) instructs the Court, however, to consider whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors. Taking judicial notice of the schedules filed in Debtor’s most recent case, 6:19-bk-14078-MH, it appears Debtor could have certain unexempt assets which could provide a distribution to creditors. UST has not addressed whether dismissal or conversion would be in the best interests of creditors.


Assuming that dismissal is in the best interests of creditors, the court notes that it empowered to impose a refiling bar under 11 U.S.C. § 349(a). As COLLIER notes, courts’ analysis of this section is somewhat confused due to confounding "dismissal with prejudice" with "dismissal with injunction against future filings." COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 349.02[3]; compare In re Garcia, 479 B.R. 488 (Bankr. N.D. Ind.

2012) (denying motion for dismissal with prejudice, but imposing three-year refiling bar) with In re Craighead, 377 B.R. 648 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2007) (appearing to equate dismissal with prejudice with an injunction against refiling).


There is also a circuit split concerning whether an injunction on refiling for more than 180 days is allowed under the Bankruptcy Code. Compare In re Frieouf, 938 F.2d 1099 (10th Cir. 1991) (180 days is maximum allowed length of refiling injunction) with Casse v. Key Bank Nat. Ass’n, 198 F.3d 327 (2nd Cir. 1999) (injunction against filing for more than 180 days permissible). 11 U.S.C. § 349(a) reads:


Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title.


The disagreement revolves around whether the qualifier "Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise" modifies the content after the semi-colon. In re Leavitt noted this disagreement, but since the court was dealing with a dismissal with prejudice, rather than an injunction against refiling, it did not resolve the issue. 209 B.R. 935, 942 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997). Within the Ninth Circuit, it appears the trend is to adopt the reasoning of the Second Circuit and allow injunctions for more than 180 days, and the Court agrees with that reading of the statute. See e.g. In re Velasques, 2012 WL

11:00 AM

CONT...


Raymond Edward Reeley


Chapter 13

8255582 at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012).


Here, the instant bankruptcy is Debtor’s third filing in the previous twelve months in which Debtor filed an incomplete petition and failed to cure the deficiency.

Furthermore, Debtor failed to disclose a previous filing in the voluntary petition, which is signed under penalty of perjury. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to find the requested one-year refiling bar to be appropriate in the circumstances presented.


Moreover, Debtor’s failure to oppose is deemed consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING



UST to address whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Raymond Edward Reeley Pro Se

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

Abram Feuerstein esq

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16831


Paul Kirkwood


Chapter 13


#41.00 Motion by United States Trustee to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case with a Re-filing Bar


EH   


Docket 10

Tentative Ruling:

10/3/19

BACKGROUND


On August 5, 2019, Paul Kirkwood ("Debtor") filed a skeletal Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtor had three previous bankruptcies filings in since the beginning of 2018. The first, a Chapter 13 filed in March 2018, was dismissed at the confirmation hearing. The second, a Chapter 13 filed in July 2018, was dismissed for failure to make plan payments eight months into the case. The third, a Chapter 13 filed in March 2019, was dismissed at the confirmation hearing. All of these previous cases were filed with the assistance of counsel. The instant case, however, was filed pro se. The petition in the instant case stated that Debtor had not filed for bankruptcy within the previous eight years.


The balance of Debtor’s case commencement documents were due August 19, 2019. Debtor did not file the balance of the case commencement documents. On August 21, 2019, UST filed a motion to dismiss the case with a one-year bar to refiling.


DISCUSSION

11:00 AM

CONT...


Paul Kirkwood


Chapter 13

Regarding UST’s request to dismiss the case, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) provides a non- exhaustive list of grounds for dismissal of a Chapter 13 case. Sections 1307(c)(1), (3), (4), and (9) all provide grounds to dismiss a Chapter 13 case when the debtor files a skeletal petition and fails to take any further action to prosecute the case. Section 1307(c) instructs the Court, however, to consider whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors. Taking judicial notice of the schedules filed in Debtor’s most recent case, 6:19-bk-12402-MH, it appears Debtor may have certain unexempt assets which could provide a distribution to creditors. UST has not addressed whether dismissal or conversion would be in the best interests of creditors.


Assuming that dismissal is in the best interests of creditors, the court notes that it empowered to impose a refiling bar under 11 U.S.C. § 349(a). As COLLIER notes, courts’ analysis of this section is somewhat confused due to confounding "dismissal with prejudice" with "dismissal with injunction against future filings." COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 349.02[3]; compare In re Garcia, 479 B.R. 488 (Bankr. N.D. Ind.

2012) (denying motion for dismissal with prejudice, but imposing three-year refiling bar) with In re Craighead, 377 B.R. 648 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2007) (appearing to equate dismissal with prejudice with an injunction against refiling).


There is also a circuit split concerning whether an injunction on refiling for more than 180 days is allowed under the Bankruptcy Code. Compare In re Frieouf, 938 F.2d 1099 (10th Cir. 1991) (180 days is maximum allowed length of refiling injunction) with Casse v. Key Bank Nat. Ass’n, 198 F.3d 327 (2nd Cir. 1999) (injunction against filing for more than 180 days permissible). 11 U.S.C. § 349(a) reads:


Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title.


The disagreement revolves around whether the qualifier "Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise" modifies the content after the semi-colon. In re Leavitt noted this disagreement, but since the court was dealing with a dismissal with prejudice, rather than an injunction against refiling, it did not resolve the issue. 209 B.R. 935, 942 (9th

11:00 AM

CONT...


Paul Kirkwood


Chapter 13

Cir. B.A.P. 1997). Within the Ninth Circuit, it appears the trend is to adopt the reasoning of the Second Circuit and allow injunctions for more than 180 days, and the Court agrees with that reading of the statute. See e.g. In re Velasques, 2012 WL 8255582 at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012).


Here, the instant bankruptcy is Debtor’s fourth filing in the previous eighteen months in which Debtor failed to successfully prosecute his case. Furthermore, Debtor failed to disclose his previous filings in the voluntary petition, which is signed under penalty of perjury. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to find the requested one-year refiling bar to be appropriate in the circumstances presented.


Moreover, Debtor’s failure to oppose is deemed consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING



UST to address whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Paul Kirkwood Pro Se

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

Abram Feuerstein esq

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17846


Christopher Lee Sumners


Chapter 13


#41.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Personal Property that includes a 2011 Toyota Tacoma


MOVANT: CHRISTOPHER LEE SUMNERS


From: 10/1/19 EH   

Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

10/1/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None


Debtor had a prior case dismissed in the previous calendar year for failure to perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the court. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) (3)(C)(i)(II)(cc), the instant bankruptcy case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C), the Court requires "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut the presumption of bad faith. Here, Debtor has provided no evidence regarding his new financial situation, only saying that his income from a new business is consistent. Because this evidence fails to meet the heightened standard imposed by

§ 362(c)(3)(C), the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Christopher Lee Sumners Represented By Paul Y Lee

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Christopher Lee Sumners


Chapter 13

Christopher Lee Sumners Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-19520


Jeffrey B Jordan


Chapter 13


#42.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 71


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeffrey B Jordan Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-17060


Chris Alvarado Espinoza


Chapter 13


#43.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 73


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Chris Alvarado Espinoza Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-20023


Zachary Lee Nowak


Chapter 13


#44.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

EH       


Docket 127


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Zachary Lee Nowak Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-16319


Jeffrey Otto Schellin and Jennifer Lynn Schellin


Chapter 13


#45.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

EH       


Docket 85


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeffrey Otto Schellin Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Lynn Schellin Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-18621


John Wesley Wilson, Jr. and Michelle Janet Wilson


Chapter 13


#46.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 71


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John Wesley Wilson Jr. Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Michelle Janet Wilson Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20081


Richard LaFayatte Sellers


Chapter 13


#47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 47


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard LaFayatte Sellers Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-12612


Guy F Gerber


Chapter 13


#48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 31


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Guy F Gerber Represented By

Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13114


Linda Blakely and Calvin Blakely


Chapter 13


#49.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 36


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Linda Blakely Represented By Suzette Douglas

Joint Debtor(s):

Calvin Blakely Represented By Suzette Douglas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13335


Annabelle M. Vigil


Chapter 13


#50.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/5/19

EH   


Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13400


Dave Anthony Williams


Chapter 13


#51.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

EH       


Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Dave Anthony Williams Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14770


Lamar Ramon Benjamin


Chapter 13


#52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lamar Ramon Benjamin Represented By

Ethan Kiwhan Chin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15343


Jennifer Isabella Solares


Chapter 13


#53.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/22/19, 9/5/19

EH   


Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16503


Irene Elizabeth Arias


Chapter 13


#54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 36

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/19/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Irene Elizabeth Arias Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16820


Anna Marie Montgomery


Chapter 13


#55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

EH       


Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Anna Marie Montgomery Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16996


Gabriel Cruz


Chapter 13


#56.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/5/19, 9/19/19

EH   


Docket 50

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gabriel Cruz Represented By

Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17556


Daniel Javier Garcia


Chapter 13


#57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 67


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17605


Joseph N Duguay, II


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 76

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph N Duguay II Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-18821


Humberto Camacho, Jr and Sarah Camacho


Chapter 13


#59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 45


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Humberto Camacho Jr Represented By Christian N. Cooper

Joint Debtor(s):

Sarah Camacho Represented By Christian N. Cooper

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20547


Tawnie L Vanderham


Chapter 13


#60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

EH       


Docket 53


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Tawnie L Vanderham Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10669


Michael Anthony Delgado, III


Chapter 13


#61.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/1/19, 8/22/19

EH       


Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Anthony Delgado III Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11041


Caleb J. Bellot and Mandle Lynn Bellot


Chapter 13


#62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 42


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Caleb J. Bellot Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Mandle Lynn Bellot Represented By Daniel King

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11992


Pablo Cornejo


Chapter 13


#63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Pablo Cornejo Represented By Daniel King Lois A Gober

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-20487


Ann Marie Smith


Chapter 13


#64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 101


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-13874


Marisol Smith


Chapter 13


#65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 34


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Marisol Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10112


Eddie Garcia and Martha Garcia


Chapter 13


#66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 70


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eddie Garcia Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Martha Garcia Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15772


Annette Leshon Rudd


Chapter 13


#67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 96


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Annette Leshon Rudd Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-18002


Joseph R. Hernandez


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: JOSEPH HERNANDEZ


EH   


Docket 12

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/8/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-17992

Judy May Wells

Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Single Family Home 1724 Beacon Court, San Jacinto, CA 92582 and 2 Cars


MOVANT: JUDY MAY WELLS


EH   


Docket 19

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/8/19 AT 3:00 P.M.

Party Information

Judy May Wells Represented By David L Nelson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:18-10628

Markus Anthony Boyd

Chapter 11

#3.00 Motion for approval of chapter 11 disclosure statement EH   

Docket 181

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/29/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

2:00 PM

6:18-10628

Markus Anthony Boyd

Chapter 11


#4.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 3/20/18, 8/21/18, 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 2/5/19, 5/7/19, 7/30/19


EH   


Docket 16

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 10/29/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Party Information

Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

3:00 PM

6:19-17992

Judy May Wells

Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Single Family Home 1724 Beacon Court, San Jacinto, CA 92582 and 2 Cars


MOVANT: JUDY MAY WELLS


From: 10/8/19 at 2:00 P.M. EH   

Docket 19

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Judy May Wells Represented By David L Nelson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

3:00 PM

6:19-18002

Joseph R. Hernandez

Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: JOSEPH HERNANDEZ


From: 10/8/19 at 2:00 P.M. EH   

Docket 12

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-16613

Todd Robert Johnson

Chapter 7

#1.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Kia Motors Finance re 2012 Kia Soul

EH   

Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Todd Robert Johnson Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-16613


Todd Robert Johnson


Chapter 7


#2.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Harley-Davidson Credit Corp re: 2016 Harley-Davidson FLHR Road King


EH       


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Todd Robert Johnson Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-16857


Thomas Craig Feeley


Chapter 7


#3.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and State Farm Bank, FSB re: 2008 Toytoa Prius


EH       


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Thomas Craig Feeley Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:11-12667


Maximino Romero Torres and Rebecca Anne Torres


Chapter 7


#4.00 Motion to Avoid Lien Property lien with Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC EH   

Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Maximino Romero Torres Represented By James A Alderson

Joint Debtor(s):

Rebecca Anne Torres Represented By James A Alderson

Trustee(s):

Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-15107


Jesus Davila Romero


Chapter 7


#5.00 Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation


Docket 71


Tentative Ruling:

10/9/2019

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The applications for compensation of the Trustee and Counsel for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 3,750 Trustee Expenses: $ 403.45


Attorney Fees: $ 15,000 Attorney Costs: $ 1,283.11


Tax Preparer Fee: $1,000 Court Costs: $350


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Davila Romero Represented By Leonard Pena

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Davila Romero


Carmela Pagay


Chapter 7

11:00 AM

6:18-20539


Jimmie Dale Montezuma and Jovita Arzate Montezuma


Chapter 7


#6.00 Motion for Order Authorizing Trustee to Operate Real Property Effective September 7, 2019


EH   


Docket 53

Tentative Ruling:

10/9/19

BACKGROUND


On December 17, 2018, Jimmie & Jovita Montezuma ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On Schedule A, Debtors listed certain real property located at 11488 Via Monte, Fontana, CA 92336 (the "Property"), and valued the Property at

$360,000. Schedule D listed a lien on the Property in the amount of $354,000. Debtors lease the Property to Alex Fairchild and Angela Lugo (the "Tenants"). The Tenants currently pay $1,624 per month.


Trustee now believes that the Property is worth significantly more than the amount listed in the schedules, and that the Property could be sold to benefit the estate.

Towards that end, Trustee has employed counsel and an accountant to assist the estate.


On September 18, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for an order authorizing Trustee to operate the Property effective September 7, 2019. The Court has not received any timely opposition to the motion.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jimmie Dale Montezuma and Jovita Arzate Montezuma


Chapter 7

DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 721 states: "The court may authorize the trustee to operate the business of the debtor for a limited period, if such operation is in the best interest of the estate and consistent with the orderly liquidation of the estate." Trustee asserts that "collecting the Tenants’ rent and keeping the mortgage and related expenses current [] will preserve the value of the Property pending the Trustee’s marketing and sale of the same."


The Court, having reviewed the motion, service appearing proper, good cause appearing, and noting the absence of any opposition to the relief requested, is inclined to GRANT the motion, authorizing Trustee to operate the Property effective September 7, 2019.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jimmie Dale Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

Joint Debtor(s):

Jovita Arzate Montezuma Represented By Michael E Clark

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By David Seror

Jessica L Bagdanov

11:00 AM

6:19-18038


Koppi V. Beskid


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 2010 Hyundai Accent


MOVANT: KOPPI V. BESKID


From: 10/1/19 EH   

Docket 15


Tentative Ruling:

10/1/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


Pursuant to the self-calendaring procedures of Judge Houle, debtors who wish to have a motion to continue or impose the automatic stay heard on shortening notice are required to serve secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, Debtor has not complied with this service requirement. Additionally, the Court notes that pages one and three of the motion, each of which prompt Debtor to identify the affected secured creditor(s), do not identify any secured creditors. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Koppi V. Beskid Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Movant(s):

Koppi V. Beskid Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Koppi V. Beskid


Gregory Ashcraft


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18105


Jason Benjamin Marlow and Linda Sue Marlow


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 8939 Dahlia Dr. Corona CA 92883


MOVANT: JASON BENJAMIN MARLOW AND LINDA SUE MARLOW


From: 10/1/19 EH   

Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jason Benjamin Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Linda Sue Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Jason Benjamin Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Linda Sue Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


#9.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01199.

Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 8/28/19 EH   

Docket 40


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Jay Roger


Carmela Pagay Franklin R Fraley Jr


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:17-15816


Integrated Wealth Management Inc


Chapter 11


#10.00 CONT Post Confirmation Status Conference From: 10/23/18, 4/10/19

EH   


Docket 277


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Integrated Wealth Management Inc Represented By

Andrew B Levin Robert E Opera Jim D Bauch

2:00 PM

6:19-11189


Mitchell C. Nelson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01112 Bui v. Ward


#11.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01112. Complaint by Lynda T Bui against Leonard E. Ward. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Oral Contract; (3) Account Stated; (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Unjust Enrichment [11

U.S.C. § 105]; (6) Turnover of Property of the Estate [11 U.S.C. § 542]; and (7) Disallowance of Claims [11 U.S.C. § 502(d)] Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Raya, Lauren)


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mitchell C. Nelson Represented By Douglas A Plazak

Defendant(s):

Leonard E. Ward Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Lynda T Bui Represented By

Lauren E Raya

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Rika Kido

2:00 PM

6:18-12027


Richard M. Thomas


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


#12.00 Motion For Summary Judgment Against Defendant Amy Williams EH       

Docket 51

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/8/20 AT 2:00 PM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Defendant(s):

Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

Frank X Ruggier

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

2:00 PM

6:18-12027


Richard M. Thomas


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01156 Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Williams et al


#13.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01156. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee against Amy Williams, Richard M Thomas Jr.. (Charge To Estate) ($350.00). Complaint to: (1) Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfer; (2) Obtain Declaratory Relief as to Ownership of Real Property; and (3) Authorize Sale of Property Owned in Part by Non-Debtor Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (DEFAULT GRANTED AS TO SEVENTH CLAIM 4/19/19)


From: 9/26/18, 11/7/18, 12/12/18, 1/30/19, 2/27/19, 4/10/19, 9/18/19


EH       


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/8/20 AT 2:00 PM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard M. Thomas Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Defendant(s):

Amy Williams Represented By Anerio V Altman

Richard M Thomas Jr. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Raquel Young Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Plaintiff(s):

Karl T. Anderson, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Richard M. Thomas


Frank X Ruggier


Chapter 7

Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier

11:00 AM

6:19-17992


Judy May Wells


Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Single Family Home 1724 Beacon Court, San Jacinto, CA 92582 and 2 Cars


MOVANT: JUDY MAY WELLS


From: 10/8/19 EH   

Docket 19

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Judy May Wells Represented By David L Nelson

Movant(s):

Judy May Wells Represented By David L Nelson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18002

Joseph R. Hernandez

Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


MOVANT: JOSEPH HERNANDEZ


From: 10/8/19 EH   

Docket 12

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:15-18212

Michael Joseph Slowinski

Chapter 13


#1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15470 Legendary Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92555


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 8/27/19, 10/1/19 EH   

Docket 83

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

8/27/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Joseph Slowinski Pro Se

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Bank, National Represented By Sean C Ferry Eric P Enciso

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-15914


Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda


Chapter 13


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 1C6RR6GG7HS651216


MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.


From: 7/30/19, 8/27/19, 9/3/19, 9/17/19 EH    

Docket 43

Tentative Ruling:


9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor


Parties to apprise the court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


7/30/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Debtor(s):


Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda

Party Information


Chapter 13

Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Movant(s):

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Represented By

Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-20659


Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 2767 Libra Dr., Riverside, California 92503-6018


MOVANT: NEWREZ LLC


From: 8/20/19, 9/3/19, 9/17/19 EH   

Docket 63

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

8/20/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the cure of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Romy Abalunan Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

11:00 AM

CONT...


Romy Abalunan Geraldo and Bernadine Nieves Geraldo


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadine Nieves Geraldo Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Represented By

Erin M McCartney

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-11010


Gary F Pico and Mercedes P. Pico


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 39119 Crown Ranch Road, Temecula, California 92591


MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


From: 9/17/19 EH   

Docket 41


Tentative Ruling:

9/17/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Debtors


Parties to apprise the court of the status of adequate protection discussions.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary F Pico Represented By

Gregory Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Mercedes P. Pico Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Movant(s):

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC by Represented By

Mark S Krause

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Gary F Pico and Mercedes P. Pico


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-15772


Annette Leshon Rudd


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15399 Alosta Ln., Moreno Valley, CA 92555-2909


MOVANT: WILMINGTON TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 97


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.

DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annette Leshon Rudd Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Wilmington Trust, National Represented By Sumit Bode Robert P Zahradka Darlene C Vigil

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Annette Leshon Rudd


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-11652


Gwendolyn Priscilla Saunders


Chapter 13


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3606 N Lily Drive, Rialto, CA 92377


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


EH   


Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to apprise the Court of the status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gwendolyn Priscilla Saunders Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By

Armin M Kolenovic Jamie D Hanawalt Gilbert R Yabes Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-14868


Michael J Soriano


Chapter 13


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13700 Daimler Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553


MOVANT: ARVEST CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY


EH   


Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael J Soriano Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Arvest Central Mortgage Company, Represented By

Nichole Glowin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-15297


Michelle Bogdis


Chapter 13


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT 1.8T SE


MOVANT: VW CREDIT LEASING LTD


EH   


Docket 37


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michelle Bogdis Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

VW Credit Leasing, LTD. Represented By Kirsten Martinez

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-15594


Henry Hurtado, Sr.


Chapter 13


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5353 Peacock Ln, Riverside, CA 92505


MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


EH   


Docket 40

*** VACATED *** REASON: STIPULATED APO ORDERED ENTERED 10/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Henry Hurtado Sr. Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

Kelly M Raftery

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18614


Frank Thomas Scott


Chapter 13


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Insurance proceeds


MOVANT: MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA LLC


CASE DISMISSED 9/19/19


EH   


Docket 54

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/19/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Thomas Scott Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Movant(s):

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10047


Jose Antonio Contreras and Mayra Lorena Contreras


Chapter 13


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 53243 Champlain Street Lake Elsinore, California 92532


MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.


EH   


Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Antonio Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

Joint Debtor(s):

Mayra Lorena Contreras Represented By A Mina Tran

Movant(s):

Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Anna Landa

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jose Antonio Contreras and Mayra Lorena Contreras

Bonni S Mantovani


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11911


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13


#12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 18057 Longhorn Lane, Chino Hills, CA 91709


MOVANT: U.S. BANK NA


EH   


Docket 54

*** VACATED *** REASON: STIPULATED APO ENTERED 10/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By

Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank NA, successor trustee to Represented By

Nancy L Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-11963


Pamela M Bradford


Chapter 13


#13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5744 Alexandria Avenue, Corona, CA 92880-7253


MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST


EH   


Docket 49


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for Movant to provide a supplemental opposition or update of the status of arrears, and for Movant to file an opposition if desired. The Court notes that Movant’s assertion that"[t]his is no less than the 6th [b] ankruptcy case which has been filed by the Debtor, all Chapter 13 cases filed in this [d]istrict and subsequently dismissed" is incorrect. Between August 26, 2011, and June 23, 2017, Debtor was in a successful Chapter 13 case and received a discharge. To the extent that the assignor of the deed of trust did not receive monthly payments directly from Debtor, that matter could have been addressed during the pendency of that case. Additionally, the Court notes that the arrearage figures provided in the motion are inherently contradictory. The motion asserts that Debtor has missed two monthly payments post-confirmation, resulting in a delinquency in the amount of

$3,468.80. Section 12(h) of the real property declaration, however, indicates that, in the three months post-confirmation, Debtor has made one full payment and two partial payments, resulting in a deficiency of $1,479.28 (less than one monthly payment).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Pamela M Bradford


Chapter 13

Pamela M Bradford Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Movant(s):

U.S. BANK, NA AS LEGAL TITLE Represented By

Diane Weifenbach

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13292


Miguel Angel Arredondo


Chapter 7


#14.00 CONT Amended Motion (related document(s): 8 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON- BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Shirleen P. Damaske vs. Miguel Angel Arredondo, Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, Case Number CIVDS 1906769


MOVANT: SHIRLEEN P. DAMASKE


From: 8/20/19, 10/1/19


EH   


Docket 14

Tentative Ruling:


TENTATIVE RULING:

8/20/2019

Service: Improper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for Movant to properly serve Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Miguel Angel Arredondo Represented By Daniel King

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Miguel Angel Arredondo


Chapter 7

Shirleen P Damaske Represented By Michael P O'Sullivan

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14886


Amanda Marie Tucker


Chapter 7


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 HYUNDAI ELANTRA, VIN KMHDH6AE4DU006630


MOVANT: FIRST INVESTORS FINANCIAL SERVICES


EH   


Docket 20


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/19


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Amanda Marie Tucker Represented By Michael Doan

Movant(s):

First Investors Financial Services Represented By

Jennifer H Wang Sheryl K Ith

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Amanda Marie Tucker


Chapter 7

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15236


Valinda Gail Greene


Chapter 7


#16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Kia Rio, VIN 3KPA24AB3JE124116


MOVANT: SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown. Specifically, the Court notes that the body of the motion [page 4] does not check the applicable box relating to § 362(d)(2). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay.

GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Valinda Gail Greene Represented By Robert W Ripley

Movant(s):

SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Valinda Gail Greene


Chapter 7

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15920


Charles Oard Cheathem


Chapter 13


#17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15946 Sherman Way #1, (Van Nuys Area) Los Angeles, CA 91406


MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


CASE DISMISSED 7/23/19


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, in In re Fjeldsted, noted the absence of a clear standard for annulment of the automatic stay. 293 B.R. 12, 21 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003) ("There is less appellate clarity, however, in enunciating a test for retroactive stay relief. Inconsistent standards have thus developed, which run the gamut from such relief being justified only in ‘extreme circumstances’ to giving the court ‘wide latitude’ to ‘balance the equities’ on a case-by-case basis."). The BAP’s recent announcement of the standard for annulment of the automatic stay stated the following:


Determining whether cause exists to annul the stay is a case-by-case inquiry based on a balance of the equities. In conducting this inquiry the bankruptcy court, among other factors, should consider whether the creditor knew of the bankruptcy when violating the stay and whether the debtor’s conduct was unreasonable, inequitable or prejudicial to the creditor.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Charles Oard Cheathem


Chapter 13


In Fjeldsted, we approved additional factors for consideration in assessing the equities. The twelve nonexclusive factors are: (1) number of filings; (2) whether, in a repeat filing case, the circumstances indicate an intention to delay and hinder creditors; (3) a weighing of the extent of prejudice to creditors or third parties if the stay relief is not made retroactive, including whether harm exists to a bona fide purchaser; (4) the debtor’s overall good faith (totality of circumstances test); (5) whether creditors knew of stay but nonetheless took action, thus compounding the problem; (6) whether the debtor has complied, and is otherwise complying, with the Bankruptcy Code and Rules; (7) the relative ease of restoring parties to the status quo ante; (8) the costs of annulment to debtors and creditors; (9) how quickly creditors moved for annulment, or how quickly debtor moved to set aside the sale or violative conduct; (10) whether, after learning of the bankruptcy, creditors proceeded to take steps in continued violation of the stay, or whether they moved expeditiously to gain relief; (11) whether annulment of the stay will cause irreparable injury to the debtor; and (12) whether stay relief will promote judicial economy or other efficiencies. The Panel in Fjeldsted cautioned that the twelve factors are merely a framework for analysis and not a scorecard, and that in any given case, one factor may so outweigh the others as to be dispositive.


In re Estavan Capital LLC, 2015 WL 7758494 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted).


Fjeldsted cautioned that the enumerated factors are not a scorecard, but the Fjeldsted standard clearly weigh in favor of annulling the stay here. Specifically, as is noted by Creditor, this is the fourth filing affecting the subject real property during 2019, and all four cases were summarily dismissed, indicating an intention to delay and hinder creditors. Additionally, the Court notes that Debtor filed a skeletal petition which was subsequently dismissed for failure to comply with the Bankruptcy Code, indicating that this filing was likely not in good faith. Furthermore, the fact that Debtor received

11:00 AM

CONT...


Charles Oard Cheathem


Chapter 13

a 5% interest in the subject real property through an unrecorded grant deed purportedly executed three days before the petition date indicates that the Debtor may not have a valid interest in the subject real property, and may not suffer any prejudice through an annulment of the automatic stay. Finally, the only creditor Debtor listed in the mailing matrix was "Community Hospital," implying that Movant did not have any notice of the bankruptcy filing prior to the foreclosure sale.


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to the extent of ANNULLING the automatic stay. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. The Court is inclined to DENY all other requests as MOOT because this case was dismissed on July 23, 2019, fifty-two days before the instant motion was filed.

While Movant cites In re Aheong, 276 B.R. 233 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002) for the proposition that the Court retains jurisdiction over motions for relief from the automatic stay after dismissal, that case considered a motion to annul the automatic stay, and the Court is not of the position that it has jurisdiction to hear prospective requests filed after the case is dismissed.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Charles Oard Cheathem Pro Se

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Darlene C Vigil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16777


Michael Alba


Chapter 13


#18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Dodge Charger, VIN: 2C3CDXGJ9JH113259


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


EH   


Docket 23


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Alba Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

Jennifer H Wang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16854


David Perez, Jr.


Chapter 7


#19.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Dodge Charger SE Sedan 4D


MOVANT: EXETER FINANCE, LLC


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Perez Jr. Represented By Daniel King

Movant(s):

Exeter Finance, LLC Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17096


Joseph F Morgano and Elizabeth A Morgano


Chapter 13


#20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Chrysler 200 4C


MOVANT: BRIDGECREST LLC


EH   


Docket 18


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. DENY request from § 1301(a) co- debtor stay because it does not appear that any co-debtor, as that term is used in the statute, has been served with the motion. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph F Morgano Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth A Morgano Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Bridgecrest, LLC Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Joseph F Morgano and Elizabeth A Morgano

Lemuel Bryant Jaquez


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17109


Isaac Carreon


Chapter 7


#21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Toyota Camry


MOVANT: THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION


EH   


Docket 17


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Isaac Carreon Represented By Kevin Tang

Movant(s):

Golden 1 Credit Union Represented By Mirco J Haag

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17901


Wendy Ramirez


Chapter 13


#22.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 30157 Pine Needle Rd., Sun City, CA 92585


MOVANT: WENDY RAMIREZ


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/2019


Service: Improper Opposition: None


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B), a hearing on a motion to continue the automatic stay must be held and completed within thirty days of the petition date. Here, Debtor set the instant motion for hearing thirty-seven days after the petition date. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED. Brian Soo-Hoo is directed to personally appear.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Wendy Ramirez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Movant(s):

Wendy Ramirez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo Brian J Soo-Hoo

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Wendy Ramirez


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18380


Laura Marie Beauchamp


Chapter 7


#23.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 6084 Holland Court, Corona, CA 92880


MOVANT: LAURA MARIE BEAUCHAMP


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

10/15/19


Service: Okay Opposition: None


The Court having reviewed the motion, notice appearing acceptable in the circumstances, no opposition having been filed, and it appearing that Debtor has provided sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c) (3)(C)(II)(aa) that the case was not filed in good faith, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and Specialized Loan Servicing.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Laura Marie Beauchamp Represented By Ronald W Ask

Movant(s):

Laura Marie Beauchamp Represented By Ronald W Ask

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Laura Marie Beauchamp


Chapter 7

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-15816


Integrated Wealth Management Inc


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:19-01100 Issa v. Delaney et al


#24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01100 Complaint by

J. Michael Issa against Ryan Delaney, John Wong, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. (Charge To Estate)($350.00) for: 1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Negligence [Demand for Jury Trial] Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Ignatuk, Joseph)


From: 9/17/19 EH       

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Integrated Wealth Management Inc Represented By

Andrew B Levin Robert E Opera Jim D Bauch

Defendant(s):

Ryan Delaney Represented By Paul A Reynolds

John Wong Represented By

David P Bleistein

Plaintiff(s):

J. Michael Issa Represented By Joseph R Ignatuk

11:00 AM

6:11-21328


Moses Vasi Savar and Estrella Nina Savar


Chapter 7


#1.00 CONT Motion to Avoid JUDICIAL LIEN with Pacific Labor Source, Inc.


EH   


Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Moses Vasi Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen

Joint Debtor(s):

Estrella Nina Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen

Movant(s):

Moses Vasi Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen

Estrella Nina Savar Represented By Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-15301


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7


#2.00 CONT Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy under Rule 9019


From: 9/18/19 EH       

Docket 24

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 11/6/19 AT 2:00 PM

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND


On June 24, 2017, Jaspar & Brenda Stevens ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On October 10, 2017, Debtors received a discharge, and the case was closed the next day.


On July 24, 2019, UST filed a motion to reopen the case so that Trustee could investigate a proposed settlement of a lawsuit; the case was reopened the same day. On August 16, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise. The compromise relates to the settlement of the state court litigation initially commenced by Debtors against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. The material terms of the compromise are that Trustee shall execute a request for dismissal of the state court litigation in return for

$50,000.


On August 28, 2019, Debtors filed an opposition to the compromise motion. Debtors argue that the state court lawsuit was properly abandoned upon the conclusion of Debtors’ bankruptcy case, and that, as a result, the claims are not property of the estate

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

and cannot be compromised by Trustee. On September 10, 2019, Trustee filed a reply arguing that the state court litigation was not abandoned.


The relevant material facts are not in dispute. Debtors concede that the litigation was not disclosed on their schedules. Trustee concedes that the litigation was disclosed on the statement of financial affairs. The parties dispute revolves around the interpretation of the word "scheduled" in 11 U.S.C. § 554(c).


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 554(c) states: "Unless the court orders otherwise, any property scheduled under section 521(a)(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of this title." "Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under this section and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate." 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1) states


  1. The debtor shall

    1. file


      1. a list of creditors; and

      2. unless the court orders otherwise –

        1. a schedule of assets and liabilities;

        2. a schedule of current income and current expenditures


        3. a statement of the debtor’s financial affairs and, if section 342(b) applies, a certificate –

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens

          1. of an attorney whose name is indicated on the petition as the attorney for the debtor, or a bankruptcy petition preparer signing the petition under section 110(b)(1), indicating that such attorney or the bankruptcy petition preparer delivered to the debtor the notice required by section 342(b); or


          2. if not attorney is no indicated, and no bankruptcy petition preparer signed the petition, of the debtor that such notice was received and read by the debtor;


        4. copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor from any employer of the debtor;


        5. a statement of the amount of monthly net income, itemized to show how the amount is calculated; and


        6. a statement disclosing any reasonably anticipated increase in income or expenditures over the 12- month period following the date of the filing of the petition


          Chapter 7


          Debtors primarily rely upon In re Hill, 195 B.R. 147 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1996). Trustee

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


          Chapter 7

          implicitly concedes that In re Hill supports Debtors’ position, but Trustee argues that "In re Hill relied on an erroneous statutory interpretation, went against policy and authority in relieving debtors of their obligations and consequences, and was essentially disposed of on other grounds that section 554(c), and should therefore not be followed by this Court." [Dkt. No. 30, pg. 7, lines 22-24]. In re Hill concluded that:


          The language of § 521 itself supports a broader reading of "scheduled" in § 554(c), because the paragraph which follows paragraph § 521(1) makes a particular reference to "debtor’s schedule of assets and liabilities." The use of this specific reference strongly suggests that the drafts of the Code will say "schedule of assets and liabilities" when that narrow requirement is intended, and that a reference to § 521(1) is a reference to § 521(1) as a whole.


          Id. at 150; see also U.S. ex rel. Fortenberry v. Holloway Group, Inc., 515 B.R. 827 (W.D. Okla. 2014) ("In other words the Court finds that the ‘scheduled’ requirement in § 554(c) refers to all of the disclosures required in § 521(a)(1), including the debtor’s statement of financial affairs.").


          On the other hand, Trustee points to multiple cases from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel which held that "[m]entioning an asset in the statement of financial affairs is not the same as scheduling it for purposes of abandonment under § 554(c)." In re Pretscher-Johnson, 2017 WL 2779977 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2017); In re Kayne, 453 B.R. 372 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (same); see also In re Fossey, 119 B.R. 268 (D. Utah 1990) ("The case have held that the word ‘scheduled’ in § 554(c) refers to property listed in the debtor’s Schedule of Assets and Liabilities."). While Debtor has provided a recent Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case which seems to backtrack from the Panel’s earlier position to a degree, as noted by Trustee, the reasoning in In re Tadayon, 2019 WL 1923044 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019) is less than clear, bordering on bizarre.


          Noting that the majority of the caselaw on this issue favors the position of the Trustee, the Court is inclined to conclude that the listing of the pending lawsuit in the statement of financial affairs is inadequate to trigger a technical

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


          Chapter 7

          abandonment of that asset pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). While the Court acknowledges that the drafting of § 554(c) is somewhat ambiguous given that the statute could refer to § 521(a)(1)(B)(i), instead of § 521(a)(1) generally, the use of the word "scheduled" must be interpreted in relation to the preparation of "schedules." Divorcing the verb "scheduled" from the noun "schedules" does not appear to be a reasonable approach to statutory interpretation, especially considering that in other sections, the Code includes the phrase "neither listed nor scheduled under section 521(a)(1)." 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).


          Turning to the compromise motion, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


          On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


          The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.


          Here, the evidence before the Court is insufficient to assess the "fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" of the compromise. Specifically, the Court notes that the compromise motion does not include any meaningful detail regarding the nature of the state court litigation to be compromise, nor does the motion contain any description of the amount of damages sought in state court. Because of this absence of information, the Court is wholly unable to assess the reasonableness of the $50,000 to be received by the bankruptcy estate.

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


          Chapter 7


          TENTATIVE RULING



          The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence as to the

          A&C Properties elements.


          APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Jasper Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

          Joint Debtor(s):

          Brenda Louise Murray Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

          Movant(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

          Trustee(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

          11:00 AM

          6:19-14564


          Cesar Hernandez Vazquez and Mirna Gomez


          Chapter 7


          #3.00 Motion of Chapter 7 Trustee to Dismiss Case and Vacate Discharge if Previously Entered (As to Co-Debtor, Only)


          EH       


          Docket 18

          Tentative Ruling:

          10/16/19

          BACKGROUND

          On May 28, 2019, Cesar Hernandez Vazquez and Mirna Gomez (collectively "Debtors"; individually, "Cesar" and "Mirna") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On September 6, 2019, the Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case and vacate the discharge if previously entered only to the Co-Debtor, Mirna. Discharged was entered on September 9, 2019.

          DISCUSSION


          1. Dismissal


            "Non-married co-residents may not file a joint petition pursuant to §302(a)

            …Courts interpret [§302(a)’s definition of spouse] as applicable to only those couples that are legally married." In re Lucero, 408 B.R. 348, 350 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2009).

            11:00 AM

            CONT... Cesar Hernandez Vazquez and Mirna Gomez Chapter 7

            Courts addressing erroneous joint petition by non-spouses have given debtors the

            option of dismissing one party in the joint petition or facing dismissal of the entire case. Id.; In re Lam, 98 B.R. 965 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1988) (allowing a mother and daughter filing a joint petition thirty days to remove one party from the case or face dismissal.); In re Malone, 59 B.R. 2 (E.D. Mich. 1985)(allowing a same-sex, unmarried couple twenty days to dismiss one of the co-debtors or faced dismissal of the entire case.)


          2. Vacation of Discharge


          Here, where dismissal of the case is appropriate, logic dictates that a prerequisite to such dismissal is a vacation of the discharge. The standard approach when a trustee has not been able to determine whether an objection to discharge is warranted (by the applicable deadline) is for the Trustee to file a motion requesting an extension of that deadline pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(b).


          Trustee did not file such an extension here. Therefore, instead of filing an objection to discharge, Trustee would need to revoke the discharge already entered. A request to revoke a discharge requires an adversary proceeding pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7001(4). See In re Lokay, 269 B.R. 132, 138 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2001)

          ("proceeding to revoke a discharge must be brought as an adversary action."); In re Barr, 183 B.R. 531, 536 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995) ("discharge can be revoked only by way of an Adversary proceeding brought pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7001(4) and U.S.C. § 727(d)."); see also 10 COLLIER’S ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 7001.01 (16th ed.

          2018) ("failing to commence an adversary proceeding when seeking the relief of the kind listed in Rule 7001 has resulted in denial of the motion or dismissal of the proceeding."). While, in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to waive the requirement of an adversary proceeding, those cases fall into two categories – absence of prejudice to the affected parties or explicit or implicit waiver of the requirement.

          See Id. Here, Movant has provided that the affected Debtor consented to dismissal, and no opposition has been filed.


          Given the foregoing, the court will also vacate entry of discharge as to Mirna Gomez although it appears the discharge did not apply to her.


          APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Debtor(s):


          Cesar Hernandez Vazquez and Mirna Gomez

          Party Information


          Chapter 7

          Cesar Hernandez Vazquez Pro Se

          Joint Debtor(s):

          Mirna Gomez Pro Se

          Movant(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

          Trustee(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:12-23460


          Jenny Luz Andrino


          Chapter 7


          #4.00 Order to show cause why Priscilla Solario should not be sanctioned Also #4 - #6


          EH   


          Docket 0


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

          Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario

          Trustee(s):

          Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:12-23460


          Jenny Luz Andrino


          Chapter 7


          #5.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f) with American Express Bank, FSB


          From: 9/18/19 Also #4 - #6 EH       

          Docket 39

          Tentative Ruling:


          9/18/2019


          Service: Proper Opposition: None


          On May 31, 2012, Jenny Andrino ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On September 10, 2012, Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge, and eight days later the case was closed.


          On February 8, 2019, the case was reopened for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. No action was timely taken by Debtor, however, and the case was closed on April 10, 2019. On July 19, 2019, the case was reopened a second time for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. On July 22, 2019, Debtor amended certain schedules, including Schedule C. The Court notes that this amendment appears to be improper pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 1009(a) and 9006(b)(1).

          Nevertheless, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) refers to an exemption "to which the debtor would have been entitled," and does not seem to impose a requirement that the exemption be

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Jenny Luz Andrino


          Chapter 7

          properly claimed.


          On July 30, 2019, Debtor filed two motions to avoid lien affecting American Express Bank FSP and Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., These motions were subsequently amended on August 1, 2019, and August 12, 2019. On September 3, 2019, the Court set the matters for hearing.


          The Court notes that the evidence of the fair market value of the subject real property consists of a Broker’s Opinion that is "as of" May 9, 2019. The proper date for determining the value of the subject real property is, however, the petition date. See, e.g., In re Vokac, 273 B.R. 553 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002); In re Abrahimzadeh, 162 B.R. 676 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1994); In re Finn, 151 B.R. 25 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1992); In re

          Sanglier, 124 B.R. 511 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1991); In re Truan, 121 B.R. 9 (Bankr.

          S.D. Tex. 1990) ("The appropriate time focus for valuation of Debtors’ equity for a Section 522(f) lien avoidance proceeding is the date on which the petition was filed.").


          The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence.


          APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

          Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario

          Movant(s):

          Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

          Julieann Sayegh Farraj

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Trustee(s):


          Jenny Luz Andrino


          Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario Priscilla C Solario


          Chapter 7

          Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:12-23460


          Jenny Luz Andrino


          Chapter 7


          #6.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. Section 522(f) with Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.


          From: 9/18/19 Also #4 - #5 EH       

          Docket 40

          Tentative Ruling:


          9/18/2019


          Service: Proper Opposition: None


          On May 31, 2012, Jenny Andrino ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On September 10, 2012, Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge, and eight days later the case was closed.


          On February 8, 2019, the case was reopened for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. No action was timely taken by Debtor, however, and the case was closed on April 10, 2019. On July 19, 2019, the case was reopened a second time for Debtor to file motions to avoid judgment liens. On July 22, 2019, Debtor amended certain schedules, including Schedule C. The Court notes that this amendment appears to be improper pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rules 1009(a) and 9006(b)(1).

          Nevertheless, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1) refers to an exemption "to which the debtor would have been entitled," and does not seem to impose a requirement that the exemption be

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Jenny Luz Andrino


          Chapter 7

          properly claimed.


          On July 30, 2019, Debtor filed two motions to avoid lien affecting American Express Bank FSP and Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., These motions were subsequently amended on August 1, 2019, and August 12, 2019. On September 3, 2019, the Court set the matters for hearing.


          The Court notes that the evidence of the fair market value of the subject real property consists of a Broker’s Opinion that is "as of" May 9, 2019. The proper date for determining the value of the subject real property is, however, the petition date. See, e.g., In re Vokac, 273 B.R. 553 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002); In re Abrahimzadeh, 162 B.R. 676 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1994); In re Finn, 151 B.R. 25 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1992); In re

          Sanglier, 124 B.R. 511 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1991); In re Truan, 121 B.R. 9 (Bankr.

          S.D. Tex. 1990) ("The appropriate time focus for valuation of Debtors’ equity for a Section 522(f) lien avoidance proceeding is the date on which the petition was filed.").


          The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence.


          APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

          Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario

          Movant(s):

          Jenny Luz Andrino Represented By

          Julieann Sayegh Farraj

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Trustee(s):


          Jenny Luz Andrino


          Julieann Sayegh Farraj Priscilla C Solario Priscilla C Solario


          Chapter 7

          Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:17-15809


          Beatrice A Diaz


          Chapter 7


          #6.10 Motion for Order: (1) Authorizing Sale of Estates Right, Title and Interest in Real Property Free and Clear of Liens; (2) Approving Payment of Real Estate Brokers Commissions; and (3) Finding Purchaser is a Good Faith Purchaser


          EH       


          Docket 93

          Tentative Ruling:

          10/10/19

          BACKGROUND


          On July 12, 2017, Beatrice Diaz ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Among the scheduled assets was certain real property located at 619 Calle Cuesta, Watsonville, CA 95076 (the "Property").


          On December 20, 2017, Trustee filed a complaint against Debtor’s non-filing spouse, Jose Diaz ("Defendant"), seeking: (1) a declaration that the Property constituted community property; (2) turnover of the Property; and (3) authority to sell Defendant’s interest in the Property. After Defendant failed to respond to the adversary complaint, Trustee moved for default. On May 22, 2018, the Court entered judgment adjudicating the Property to be community property and directing Defendant to turn over the property.


          In January 2019, the Court entered two orders related to Trustee’s efforts to gain control over the Property. First, in the adversary proceeding, the Court granted Trustee’s motion for a writ of possession as to Defendant. Second, in the main bankruptcy case, the Court granted Trustee’s motion for turnover as to Debtor.


          On July 10, 2019, Trustee filed a motion seeking to establish procedures for the sale of the Property. Part of the reason for the filing of the instant motion is that the Property is subject to the Measure J Affordable Housing Program, which imposes a ceiling of $363,798 on the Property’s purchase price. Because the sale price of the Property is essentially fixed by a county voter initiative, the Trustee proposes a unique

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Beatrice A Diaz


          Chapter 7

          sale process which involves working with the county to post the listing, screen applicants, and then, ostensibly, randomly rank qualified bidders.


          On July 30, 2019, the Court granted the motion for the Trustee to establish procedures for the sale of the property. In granting the motion, the Court authorize the Trustee to serve such proposed sale motion on not less than seven-day notice to all parties.


          On October 9, 2019, the Trustee filed this motion to authorize the sale of the Property free and clear of liens, approve payment of the real estate broker’s commission, and find the purchaser of good faith. The Trustee was able to find purchasers of the Property. The purchasers are Octavio Diaz Alvarez, Marta Diaz, and Josue Diaz (collectively, the "Purchasers").

          There appears to be two issues that the Trustee needs to address:

          1. How did Measure J process work? Did the County unilaterally pick the purchasers, or was the Trustee involved?


          2. Based on how Measure J process worked, why should the broker be entitled to a commission?



          APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Beatrice A Diaz Pro Se

          Trustee(s):

          Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Todd A Frealy

          Anthony A Friedman

          2:00 PM

          6:15-14230


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:17-01085 PRINGLE v. Winn et al


          #7.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01085. Complaint by JOHN P PRINGLE against Ralph Winn. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). and other Defendants including DOES 1-25 Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13-Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer, 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property,14 - Recovery of money/property - other, 91- Declaratory judgment)


          From: 7/12/17, 8/23/17, 10/25/17, 5/16/18, 6/27/18, 9/26/18, 1/23/19, 3/27/19, 6/26/19


          EH   


          Docket 1

          *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/15/20 AT 2:00 P.M.

          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -

          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

          Defendant(s):

          Ralph Winn Represented By

          Douglas A Plazak

          Sterling Security Service, Inc. Represented By Seth W Wiener

          Natalia V Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

          Steven B Knoch Represented By Seth W Wiener

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          Stacy Winn Represented By

          Douglas A Plazak

          Plaintiff(s):

          JOHN P PRINGLE Represented By Charity J Manee Robert P Goe

          Trustee(s):

          John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

          2:00 PM

          6:16-18182


          Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


          Chapter 13


          #8.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 11 by Claimant Natasha Reynoso and Mark Reynoso

          HOLDING DATE


          From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19, 8/21/19


          EH   


          Docket 44


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Joint Debtor(s):

          Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Movant(s):

          Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          2:00 PM

          6:16-18182


          Douglas Edward Goodman


          Chapter 13

          Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


          #9.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [13] Amended Complaint by Michael J Hemming on behalf of Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01277. Complaint by Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Douglas Edward Goodman, Anne Louise Goodman. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) filed by Plaintiff Mark & Natasha Reynoso)

          (Holding Date)


          From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19, 8/21/19


          Also #10 EH   

          Docket 13


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Defendant(s):

          Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Joint Debtor(s):

          Anne Louise Goodman Represented By

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Douglas Edward Goodman


          Edward T Weber


          Chapter 13

          Plaintiff(s):

          Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          2:00 PM

          6:16-18182


          Douglas Edward Goodman


          Chapter 13

          Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


          #10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [139] Crossclaim by Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman against Theresa Mann, Jose Pastora (Weber, Edward)


          From: 8/21/19 Also #9

          EH   


          Docket 139

          *** VACATED *** REASON: CROSS COMPLAINT DISMISSED PER ORDER ENTERED 9/3/2019

          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -

          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Defendant(s):

          Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Joint Debtor(s):

          Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

          Plaintiff(s):

          Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Trustee(s):


          Douglas Edward Goodman


          Michael J Hemming


          Chapter 13

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          2:00 PM

          6:17-17749


          Joshua Cord Richardson


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:19-01114 Sonnenfeld v. Diaz et al


          #11.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01114. Complaint by Cleo Sonnenfeld against Gabriela Nieto Diaz, Laguna Motors, Inc.. Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential Transfer; (2) Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; and (3) Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Actual Fraudulent Transfer [11 U.S.C. Sections 544, 547, 548, 550 and 551; Cal. Civ. Code Sections 3439.04, 3439.05] (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Hays, D)


          ALIAS SUMMONS ISSUED 9/6/19


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

          Defendant(s):

          Gabriela Nieto Diaz Pro Se

          Laguna Motors, Inc. Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By Laila Masud

          D Edward Hays

          2:00 PM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Joshua Cord Richardson


          Chapter 7

          Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

          2:00 PM

          6:18-10939


          Vance Zachary Johnson


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:18-01100 Zamucen & Curren LLP v. Johnson


          #12.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01100. Complaint by Zamucen & Curren LLP against Vance Zachary Johnson . (d),(e)))


          From: 7/31/18, 10/3/18, 1/9/19, 1/30/19, 2/27/19, 7/3/19, 7/17/19


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

          Defendant(s):

          Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

          Plaintiff(s):

          Zamucen & Curren LLP Represented By Patricia J Grace

          Trustee(s):

          Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

          2:00 PM

          6:18-13057


          Desert Ice Castle, LLC


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:19-01025 Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 trustee v. Liu


          #13.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01025. Complaint by Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 trustee against Anthony Liu. (Charge To Estate -

          $350.00). with Summons and Adversary Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Goe, Robert)


          From: 3/27/19, 6/26/19 EH   

          Docket 1

          *** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 10/2/19

          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -

          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Desert Ice Castle, LLC Represented By Paul M Stoddard

          Defendant(s):

          Anthony Liu Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          Steven M. Speier, as chapter 7 Represented By Ryan S Riddles Robert P Goe

          Trustee(s):

          Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

          Thomas J Eastmond

          2:00 PM

          6:18-16831


          Young Jin Yoon


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:18-01210 Kim v. Yoon et al


          #14.00 CONT Status Conference Re: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01210. Complaint by Vivian Kim against Young Jin Yoon, Hyunmyung Park, Joshua Park. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud, 72 - Injunctive relief - other, 13 - Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer, 68 - Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury


          From: 1/9/19, 7/31/19 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Young Jin Yoon Represented By Ji Yoon Kim

          Defendant(s):

          Young Jin Yoon Represented By Ji Yoon Kim

          Hyun Myung Park Represented By Ji Yoon Kim

          Joshua Park Represented By

          Ji Yoon Kim

          Plaintiff(s):

          Vivian Kim Represented By

          Jiyoung Kym

          2:00 PM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Young Jin Yoon


          Chapter 7

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

          2:00 PM

          6:18-17177


          Julie Lynn Salazar


          Chapter 7


          #15.00 CONT Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order: (1) Establishing Conditions and Procedures for Dismissal of Case Under 11 U.S.C. Section 707(a); and (2)

          Approving Payment of Creditor Claims and Administrative Fees

          (Only as to Commission) From: 6/5/19, 8/28/19, 9/18/19 Also #16

          EH   


          Docket 67


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

          Movant(s):

          Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

          Trustee(s):

          Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

          2:00 PM

          6:18-17177


          Julie Lynn Salazar


          Chapter 7


          #16.00 CONT Motion for Objection to Claim of Exemptions by Debtor, Julie Lynn Salazar

          (HOLDING DATE)


          From: 1/16/19, 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 5/29/19, 6/5/19, 8/28/19, 9/18/19


          Also #15 EH   

          Docket 30


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

          Movant(s):

          Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

          Trustee(s):

          Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Tinho Mang

          2:00 PM

          6:18-17177


          Julie Lynn Salazar


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:18-01231 Winegardner Masonry, Inc. v. Salazar


          #17.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01231. Complaint by Winegardner Masonry, Inc. against Julie Lynn Salazar. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(41 (Objection / revocation of discharge - 727(c),(d),(e)))

          (Holding Date)


          From: 1/30/19, 4/10/19, 9/18/19 EH   

          Docket 1

          *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER DISMISSING ADVERSARY 9/30/19

          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -

          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

          Defendant(s):

          Julie Lynn Salazar Represented By Jenny L Doling

          Plaintiff(s):

          Winegardner Masonry, Inc. Represented By William A Smelko

          Trustee(s):

          Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Julie Lynn Salazar


          Tinho Mang


          Chapter 7

          2:00 PM

          6:19-14650


          Blanca Flor Torres


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:19-01117 Whitmore v. Gularte et al


          #18.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01117. Complaint by Robert

          S. Whitmore against Jose Gularte, Marjorie Elizabeth Gularte-Torres. (Charge To Estate $350.00). (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet # 2 Summons) Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Philippi, Julie)


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Blanca Flor Torres Represented By Brian J Horan

          Defendant(s):

          Jose Gularte Pro Se

          Marjorie Elizabeth Gularte-Torres Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Julie Philippi

          Trustee(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

          11:00 AM

          6:10-20626


          Irma Cantu


          Chapter 13

          Adv#: 6:17-01057 Cantu v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al


          #1.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01057. Complaint by Irma Cantu against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. (Fee Not Required). Nature of Suit: (21 (Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)) (Cravens, Leonard)


          From: 11/15/18, 6/6/19 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Irma Cantu Represented By

          Leonard J Cravens

          Defendant(s):

          Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Adam N Barasch

          Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Adam N Barasch

          Plaintiff(s):

          Irma Cantu Represented By

          Leonard J Cravens

          Trustee(s):

          Rod (MJ) Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:17-12149


          Irma Dalia Cantu


          Chapter 13


          #2.00 CONT Debtor's Motion for Order Disallowing Claim no 1-1 filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

          (HOLDING DATE)


          From: 6/4/18, 8/30/18, 11/15/18, 6/6/19 EH   


          Docket 24


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Irma Dalia Cantu Represented By Leonard J Cravens

          Movant(s):

          Irma Dalia Cantu Represented By Leonard J Cravens Leonard J Cravens

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:17-12232


          Margarito Martinez


          Chapter 13

          Adv#: 6:19-01051 Martinez v. Garza et al


          #3.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01051. Complaint by Margarito Martinez against Cesar Emilo Garza, Noe Pelayo, George Arthur Macias, Flor Valladares, Henry Gonzalez, West Coast Realty, Inc., Grand Capital Group, M&M Associates. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)),(02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy)))


          From: 5/23/19, 8/22/19 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Margarito Martinez Represented By Christopher J Langley

          Defendant(s):

          Cesar Garza Pro Se

          Noe Pelayo Pro Se

          George Arthur Macias Pro Se

          Flor Valladares Pro Se

          Henry Gonzalez Pro Se

          West Coast Plus Realty, Inc. Pro Se

          Grand Capital Group Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          CONT...


          Margarito Martinez


          Chapter 13

          M&M Associates Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          Margarito Martinez Represented By Christopher J Langley

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:17-19790


          Angel Rodriguez


          Chapter 13


          #4.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


          EH   


          Docket 46


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Angel Rodriguez Represented By Nancy Korompis

          Movant(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:17-20318


          Lynette Kathryn Beaver


          Chapter 13


          #5.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH       

          Docket 76


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Lynette Kathryn Beaver Represented By Anerio V Altman

          Movant(s):

          Lynette Kathryn Beaver Represented By Anerio V Altman Anerio V Altman

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:18-13335


          Annabelle M. Vigil


          Chapter 13


          #6.00 CONT Motion to Disallow Claim No. 3 filed by Lake Hills Maintenance Corporation


          From: 9/19/19 Also #7 & #8 EH   

          Docket 51


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

          Movant(s):

          Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:18-13335


          Annabelle M. Vigil


          Chapter 13


          #7.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


          From: 9/19/19 Also #6 & #8 EH   

          Docket 53


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

          Movant(s):

          Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:18-13335


          Annabelle M. Vigil


          Chapter 13


          #8.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/5/19, 10/3/19

          Also #6 & #7 EH   

          Docket 48


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:18-15343


          Jennifer Isabella Solares


          Chapter 13


          #9.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


          Also #10 EH   

          Docket 46

          *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/9/19

          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -

          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

          Rabin J Pournazarian

          Movant(s):

          Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

          Rabin J Pournazarian Rabin J Pournazarian

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:18-15343


          Jennifer Isabella Solares


          Chapter 13


          #10.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/22/19, 9/5/19, 10/3/19

          Also #9 EH   

          Docket 35


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Jennifer Isabella Solares Represented By

          Rabin J Pournazarian

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:19-10415


          Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


          Chapter 13


          #11.00 Motion to Disallow Claims re Moreno Valley Ranch Community Association Also #12

          EH   


          Docket 46

          Tentative Ruling:

          10/17/19


          BACKGROUND:


          On January 17, 2019, Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism (collectively, the "Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On May 2, 2019, Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


          On February 4, 2019, Moreno Valley Ranch Community Association ("Association") filed a proof of claim in the amount of $24,224.42 ("Claim 3"). The Association alleges all the amount is secured by the debtors’ principal residence, 26818 Calle Luna, Moreno Valley, California 92555; and it is entitled to twelve percent (12.00%) interest rate on the claim. Debtor contends that the claim should be disallowed because (1) it is not legally supported and is lacking evidentiary support;

    2. lacks proper notice; or in the alternative, (3) the claim should be secured in the amount of $17,879.31 with a ten percent (10.00%) interest rate and an unsecured claim of $6,345.11.


      On the other hand, the Association claims that collateral estoppel prevents Debtors from relitigating this issue. On June 29, 2011, the Superior Court awarded the Association a judgment for foreclosure and money against the Debtors for the amounts owed from March 31, 2009 to April 1, 2011 ("Judgment I"). On February 15, 2017, the Superior Court awarded the Association, a second time, a judgment for foreclosure and money against the Debtors for the amounts owed from April 30, 2011 to December 13, 2016 ("Judgment II"). At both times, the Association argues that the

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


      Chapter 13

      Superior Court found that the lien met all the statutory requirement, the lien is valid, and is fully secured. In addition, the Association argues that twelve percent interest rate is the statutory amount that the association is entitled to.


      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014, and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R.

      216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      "In determining the collateral estoppel of a state court judgment, federal courts must, as a matter of full faith and credit, apply the state’s law of collateral estoppel." In Bugna, 33 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994). Under California law, collateral estoppel applies when (1) the issue is identical to that in the prior case; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision was final

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


      Chapter 13

      and on the merits, and (5) the party sought to be bound by the prior proceeding was the same or privity with the party in the former proceeding. Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 3d 335, 341 (Cal. 1990).


      California Civil Procedure §685.010(a):


      "Interest accrues at the rate of 10 percent annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied." (Italics added for emphasis)


      California Civil Code §5650(b)(3):


      "Interest on all sums imposed in accordance with this section [assessment debt and delinquency], including the delinquent assessments, reasonable fees and costs of collection, and reasonable attorney’s fees, at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12 percent, commencing thirty days after the assessment becomes due, unless the declaration specifies the recovery of interest at a rate of a lesser amount, in which case the lesser rate of interest shall apply."


      ANALYSIS:


      Debtors, perplexingly, admit that there were two judgments awarded to the Association, but assert that the claims were truly never created. For the Superior Court to rule in favor of the Association, the court necessarily determined that the lien was valid. Furthermore, Debtors were the named defendants in Judgment I and Judgment II, the Superior Court made a final ruling on the merits in both cases, and the issue was necessarily decided. All elements of collateral estoppel have been satisfied by the Association.


      The Court further adopts the Association’s analysis regarding the applicable interest rate.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


      Chapter 13



      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPERANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Movant(s):

      Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10415


      Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


      Also #11 EH   

      Docket 50


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Movant(s):

      Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11710


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13


      #13.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 4 by Claimant American Express National Bank


      Also #14 & #15 EH   

      Docket 53

      Tentative Ruling:

      10/17/19


      BACKGROUND:


      On March 4, 2019, Heather Ann Pessoa Bond ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 13, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


      On April 22, 2019, American Express National Bank ("American Express") filed a proof of claim in the amount of $14,124.12 ("Claim 4-1"). On April 24, 2019, American Express filed another proof of claim in the amount of $33,018.23 ("Claim 5-1").


      Debtor claims that Claim 4-1 and Claim 5-1 were for contractual obligations made in writing and are subject to the four-year statute of limitations proscribed by California Code of Civil Procedure §337. Debtor alleges that more than four years have passed since the Debtor made payments to either claims. (See Dkt. No 53, Ex. A, Pg 6; Dkt. No 55, Ex. A, Pg 5). Thus, both claims should be disallowed. American Express has not filed an opposition to Debtor’s motions to disallow Claim 4-1 and

      5-1.


      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13

      Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014, and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R.

      216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      California Civil Code §377:


      "Within four years… (b) an action to recover…(3) a balance due upon a mutual, open and current account, the items of which are in writing…that…if an account stated is based upon an account of more than one item, the time shall begin to run from the date of the last item…(d) when the period in which an action must be commenced under this section has run, a person shall not bring suit or initiate an arbitration or other legal proceedings to collect the debt."


      ANALYSIS:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond

      Debtor acknowledges the fact that she failed to pay for transactions made on


      Chapter 13

      her account. The last payment made the account associated with Claim 4-1 was on October 2009, and the last payment made to the account associated with Claim 5-1 was on April 2008. (See Dkt. No 53, Ex. A, Pg 6; Dkt. No 55, Ex. A, Pg 5). Debtor’s failure to make any payments to these accounts is construed as a breach of her contract. Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron, 8 Cal. App 5th, 958, 966 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2017).


      The action to recover on an account accrues on the date of the last entry in the accounts. The last transaction entered into the account associated with Claim 4-1 was on June 2006. Likewise, the last transaction entered into the account associated with Claim 5-1 was on June 2006. Thus, the four-year statute of limitation has expired to initiate any legal proceedings to collect these debts.


      The Court has noted that Debtor had a prior Chapter 13 (Case No. 18-12899) filing that was dismissed. Even when considering the toll affect of the prior Chapter 13, American Express is outside the four-year limitation.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, disallowing Claims 4-1 and 5-1 in their entirety.


      APPERANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13

      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11710


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 5 by Claimant American Express National Bank


      Also #13 & #15 EH   

      Docket 55

      Tentative Ruling:

      10/17/19


      BACKGROUND:


      On March 4, 2019, Heather Ann Pessoa Bond ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 13, 2019, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


      On April 22, 2019, American Express National Bank ("American Express") filed a proof of claim in the amount of $14,124.12 ("Claim 4-1"). On April 24, 2019, American Express filed another proof of claim in the amount of $33,018.23 ("Claim 5-1").


      Debtor claims that Claim 4-1 and Claim 5-1 were for contractual obligations made in writing and are subject to the four-year statute of limitations proscribed by California Code of Civil Procedure §337. Debtor alleges that more than four years have passed since the Debtor made payments to either claims. (See Dkt. No 53, Ex. A, Pg 6; Dkt. No 55, Ex. A, Pg 5). Thus, both claims should be disallowed. American Express has not filed an opposition to Debtor’s motions to disallow Claim 4-1 and

      5-1.


      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13

      Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014, and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R.

      216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      California Civil Code §377:


      "Within four years… (b) an action to recover…(3) a balance due upon a mutual, open and current account, the items of which are in writing…that…if an account stated is based upon an account of more than one item, the time shall begin to run from the date of the last item…(d) when the period in which an action must be commenced under this section has run, a person shall not bring suit or initiate an arbitration or other legal proceedings to collect the debt."


      ANALYSIS:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond

      Debtor acknowledges the fact that she failed to pay for transactions made on


      Chapter 13

      her account. The last payment made the account associated with Claim 4-1 was on October 2009, and the last payment made to the account associated with Claim 5-1 was on April 2008. (See Dkt. No 53, Ex. A, Pg 6; Dkt. No 55, Ex. A, Pg 5). Debtor’s failure to make any payments to these accounts is construed as a breach of her contract. Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron, 8 Cal. App 5th, 958, 966 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2017).


      The action to recover on an account accrues on the date of the last entry in the accounts. The last transaction entered into the account associated with Claim 4-1 was on June 2006. Likewise, the last transaction entered into the account associated with Claim 5-1 was on June 2006. Thus, the four-year statute of limitation has expired to initiate any legal proceedings to collect these debts.


      The Court has noted that Debtor had a prior Chapter 13 (Case No. 18-12899) filing that was dismissed. Even when considering the toll affect of the prior Chapter 13, American Express is outside the four-year limitation.


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, disallowing Claims 4-1 and 5-1 in their entirety.


      APPERANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13

      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11710


      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

      Also #13 & #14 EH       

      Docket 50


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Heather Ann Pessoa Bond Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11766


      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:19-01084 SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. Yahya


      #16.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01084. Complaint by SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION against Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Reza, Paul)


      From: 8/1/19, 9/19/19 Also # 16.10

      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Defendant(s):

      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11766


      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:19-01084 SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. Yahya


      #16.10 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Also # 16

      EH         


      Docket 15


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Defendant(s):

      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

      Plaintiff(s):

      SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-14508


      Pete Kaliszewski


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Pete Kaliszewski Represented By Richard G Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-14906


      Dari Kelley


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/5/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Dari Kelley Represented By

      Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-15060


      Susan Lee Miller


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/5/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Susan Lee Miller Represented By

      Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-15270


      La Chatta P Hunter


      Chapter 13


      #20.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/19/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      La Chatta P Hunter Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-15660


      Parry Lyle Myers and Wendy Lou Myers


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/19/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Parry Lyle Myers Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Wendy Lou Myers Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16130


      Michelle J Meza


      Chapter 13


      #22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michelle J Meza Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16135


      Jerry Mitchell


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jerry Mitchell Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16154


      Connie Volpe


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/18/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Connie Volpe Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16168


      Stephanie Garcia


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Stephanie Garcia Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16173


      Jay Tony Klester


      Chapter 13


      #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jay Tony Klester Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16175


      Natifa Snowden


      Chapter 13


      #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/4/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Natifa Snowden Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16193


      La Toya J. Calvin


      Chapter 13


      #28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      La Toya J. Calvin Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16207


      Christian Flores


      Chapter 13


      #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Christian Flores Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16210


      Edward Joey Mish, Jr


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Edward Joey Mish Jr Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16216


      Luis D. Sanchez


      Chapter 13


      #31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Luis D. Sanchez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16222


      ROBERT LOUIS CIPOLLONI


      Chapter 13


      #32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      ROBERT LOUIS CIPOLLONI Represented By Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16249


      Charles Edmond Holbrook and Jennifer Lynn Holbrook


      Chapter 13


      #33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Charles Edmond Holbrook Represented By Robert W Ripley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Lynn Holbrook Represented By Robert W Ripley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16254


      Michelle Barela


      Chapter 13


      #34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michelle Barela Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16298


      Juan Antonio Clement and Karen Lynn Clement


      Chapter 13


      #35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Juan Antonio Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Karen Lynn Clement Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16302


      Veronica Guerrero


      Chapter 13


      #36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Veronica Guerrero Represented By

      C Scott Rudibaugh

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16321


      Maria Rendon


      Chapter 13


      #37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Maria Rendon Represented By Kaveh Ardalan

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16337


      Lawrence Torres, III and Michelle Tapia Torres


      Chapter 13


      #38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lawrence Torres III Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Michelle Tapia Torres Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16338


      Joseph Bellotti and Regina Bellotti


      Chapter 13


      #39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Joseph Bellotti Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Regina Bellotti Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16369


      Jorge Luis Ibarra Carrillo


      Chapter 13


      #40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jorge Luis Ibarra Carrillo Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16386


      John Louis MacLachlan


      Chapter 13


      #41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/14/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John Louis MacLachlan Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16388


      Jose Diaz


      Chapter 13


      #42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/24/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Diaz Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16409


      Maria Elly Lotz and Steven Lotz


      Chapter 13


      #43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Maria Elly Lotz Represented By Kevin Cortright

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Steven Lotz Represented By

      Kevin Cortright

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16413


      Charles Edward Nathanie Wright and Malika Unami


      Chapter 13


      #44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Charles Edward Nathanie Wright Represented By

      April E Roberts

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Malika Unami Wright Represented By April E Roberts

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16444


      Jose Antonio Mele and Victoria Isabel Mele


      Chapter 13


      #45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Antonio Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Victoria Isabel Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16462


      Veronica Valeria Licea


      Chapter 13


      #46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Veronica Valeria Licea Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16480


      John August Manthe


      Chapter 13


      #47.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John August Manthe Represented By Michael R Totaro

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16544


      Rudy Michael Castillo and Monica Michelle Castillo


      Chapter 13


      #48.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Rudy Michael Castillo Represented By

      Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Monica Michelle Castillo Represented By

      Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16586


      Miguel Perez


      Chapter 13


      #49.00 Motion For Order Compelling Attorney to File Disclosure of Compensation Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 329 And Federal Rule of Bankrutpcy Procedure 2016; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration of Mary H. Avalos In Support Thereof


      EH         


      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Miguel Perez Represented By

      Peter L Nisson

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

      Abram Feuerstein esq

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18417


      Jose G. Rodriguez


      Chapter 13


      #50.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


      MOVANT: JOSE G. RODRIGUEZ


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose G. Rodriguez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Movant(s):

      Jose G. Rodriguez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-14687


      Vernia Jean Mosby


      Chapter 13


      #51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 129


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Vernia Jean Mosby Represented By Nancy Korompis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-17060


      Chris Alvarado Espinoza


      Chapter 13


      #52.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/3/19

      EH       


      Docket 73


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Chris Alvarado Espinoza Represented By Gary S Saunders

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-19037


      Justin Sloan Harvey


      Chapter 13


      #53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 110


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Justin Sloan Harvey Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-16946


      Elliott Howard Blue, Jr and Yvette Blue


      Chapter 13


      #54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 104


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Elliott Howard Blue Jr Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yvette Blue Represented By

      Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-18621


      John Wesley Wilson, Jr. and Michelle Janet Wilson


      Chapter 13


      #55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/3/19

      EH   


      Docket 71


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John Wesley Wilson Jr. Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Michelle Janet Wilson Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-11177


      Gary Wayne Turner and Wanda Renay Turner


      Chapter 13


      #56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 55

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gary Wayne Turner Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Wanda Renay Turner Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-14292


      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed


      Chapter 13


      #57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 91


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15343


      Jose Gabriel Sahagun, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH         

      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Gabriel Sahagun Jr. Represented By Richard G Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15893


      Joseph Manuel Ruiz and Shannon Elizabeth Ruiz


      Chapter 13


      #59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 56

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/16/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joseph Manuel Ruiz Represented By April E Roberts

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Shannon Elizabeth Ruiz Represented By April E Roberts

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-16164


      William Richard Newborg and Serina Rae Newborg


      Chapter 13


      #60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 89


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      William Richard Newborg Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Serina Rae Newborg Represented By

      Ramiro Flores Munoz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-20121


      Agustin Napolion Joya and Dora Maria Joya


      Chapter 13


      #61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 64


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Agustin Napolion Joya Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dora Maria Joya Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-20272


      Jesus E. Montano and Nichole Montano


      Chapter 13


      #62.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

      EH       


      Docket 80


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jesus E. Montano Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Nichole Montano Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-11432


      Armando Guzman


      Chapter 13


      #63.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 48


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Armando Guzman Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-15192


      Everett T Cain


      Chapter 13


      #64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 51

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/16/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Everett T Cain Represented By April E Roberts

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-15541


      Alejandro Guillen and Karla Guillen


      Chapter 13


      #65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 44


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Alejandro Guillen Represented By Neil R Hedtke

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Karla Guillen Represented By Neil R Hedtke

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-18724


      Marie Lynne Trejo


      Chapter 13


      #66.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

      EH       


      Docket 34


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Marie Lynne Trejo Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-18821


      Humberto Camacho, Jr and Sarah Camacho


      Chapter 13


      #67.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/3/19

      EH   


      Docket 45


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Humberto Camacho Jr Represented By Christian N. Cooper

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Sarah Camacho Represented By Christian N. Cooper

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-19183


      Carmen Lynn Chilson


      Chapter 13


      #68.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 73


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Carmen Lynn Chilson Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-19628


      Reynaldo Perez and Gatziry Zeledon


      Chapter 13


      #69.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

      EH       


      Docket 58


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Reynaldo Perez Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Gatziry Zeledon Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-10531


      Kimberly A Hardcastle


      Chapter 13


      #70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Kimberly A Hardcastle Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-11041


      Caleb J. Bellot and Mandle Lynn Bellot


      Chapter 13


      #71.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/3/19

      EH       


      Docket 42


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Caleb J. Bellot Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mandle Lynn Bellot Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-11090


      Angela Clarice Atou


      Chapter 13


      #72.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 56


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-11963


      Pamela M Bradford


      Chapter 13


      #73.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 46

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/15/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pamela M Bradford Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-12186


      Roshanda Jeannen Dodds


      Chapter 13


      #74.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19

      EH       


      Docket 31


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Roshanda Jeannen Dodds Represented By

      Nicholas Nicholas Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-12398


      Jerry Melendrez and Laura Therese Melendrez


      Chapter 13


      #75.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 46

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jerry Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Laura Therese Melendrez Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-13444


      Humberto Picciotti


      Chapter 13


      #76.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 37


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Humberto Picciotti Represented By

      D Justin Harelik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-14029


      Cynthia Molina Gomez


      Chapter 13


      #77.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 33

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Cynthia Molina Gomez Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:19-18878


      Suzanne Joyce Vargo-Wagner


      Chapter 7


      #78.00 Order Setting Emergency Hearing on Debtor's Motion re Violation of the Automatic Stay


      EH       


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Suzanne Joyce Vargo-Wagner Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se


      Monday, October 21, 2019

      Hearing Room

      303


      9:30 AM

      6:13-27611


      Douglas Jay Roger


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


      #1.00 Trial RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01199. Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Fraley, Franklin)


      EH   


      Docket 40

      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/9/19

      Party Information

      Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

      Defendant(s):

      Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

      Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

      Plaintiff(s):

      Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr Sue-Ann L Tran

      Trustee(s):

      Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

      Franklin R Fraley Jr


      Tuesday, October 22, 2019

      Hearing Room

      303


      9:30 AM

      6:13-27611


      Douglas Jay Roger


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


      #1.00 Trial RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01199. Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Fraley, Franklin)


      EH   


      Docket 40

      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/9/19

      Party Information

      Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

      Defendant(s):

      Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

      Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

      Plaintiff(s):

      Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr Sue-Ann L Tran

      Trustee(s):

      Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

      Franklin R Fraley Jr


      Wednesday, October 23, 2019

      Hearing Room

      303


      9:30 AM

      6:13-27611


      Douglas Jay Roger


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


      #1.00 Trial RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01199. Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Fraley, Franklin)


      EH   


      Docket 40

      Debtor(s):

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/9/19

      Party Information

      Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

      Defendant(s):

      Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

      Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

      Plaintiff(s):

      Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr Sue-Ann L Tran

      Trustee(s):

      Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

      Franklin R Fraley Jr

      11:00 AM

      6:15-14652


      Donald Ray Eskridge


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 14798 Ladybird Ln, Victorville, California 92394


      MOVANT: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC


      EH       


      Docket 80

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/24/19

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: Debtor


      Movant not having filed a reply, parties are to address reconciliation of payments made.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Donald Ray Eskridge Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      PennyMac Loan Services, LLC Represented By John D Schlotter

      Karrollanne K Cayce Christina J Khil

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Donald Ray Eskridge


      Gilbert R Yabes


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:16-15914


      Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab SLT 1C6RR6GG7HS651216


      MOVANT: CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC. From: 7/30/19, 8/27/19, 9/3/19, 9/17/19, 10/15/19

      EH    


      Docket 43

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/22/19

      Tentative Ruling:


      9/17/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor


      Parties to apprise the court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      7/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Debtor(s):


      Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda

      Party Information


      Chapter 13

      Maria Aurora Chaidez Grajeda Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Movant(s):

      Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. Represented By

      Erin M McCartney

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-16945


      Rickey Hernando Waddington and Elrena Victoria


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 NISSAN VERSA, VIN # 3N1CE2CP7FL434613


      MOVANT: REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 38

      *** VACATED *** REASON: APO ORDER ENTERED 10/18/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rickey Hernando Waddington Represented By Jonathan D Doan

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Elrena Victoria Waddington Represented By Jonathan D Doan

      Movant(s):

      REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE Represented By

      Michael D Vanlochem

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-20487


      Ann Marie Smith


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6140 Sard Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701


      MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC


      EH       


      Docket 108

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶¶ 2, 3, and 6. DENY request under ¶ 13 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ann Marie Smith Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Movant(s):

      Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, and Represented By

      Christina J Khil

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Ann Marie Smith


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13102


      Luis Felipe Tejeda and Veronica Esther Tejeda


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1329 Sugar Maple Lane, Perris, California 92571


      MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      EH   


      Docket 36

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor


      Parties to discuss amount of arrears and status of adequate protection order discussions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Luis Felipe Tejeda Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Veronica Esther Tejeda Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Luis Felipe Tejeda and Veronica Esther Tejeda

      Sean C Ferry


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17732


      DeBora Debbie Walker


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 741 West Linn Point, San Jacinto, CA 92582


      MOVANT:NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE LLC


      EH   


      Docket 43

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor

      Parties to apprise the court on adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      DeBora Debbie Walker Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Movant(s):

      NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, Represented By

      Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-19096


      Nathaniel Russell Williams


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 21650 Temescal Canyon Rd., Sp 50, Corona, CA


      MOVANT: 21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION


      EH       


      Docket 50

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/28/19

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      The motion is predicated on Debtor not filing a reaffirmation agreement. However, a reaffirmation agreement was filed five days after this motion, which appears to moot the relief requested. Movant to address current situation.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nathaniel Russell Williams Represented By Dana Travis

      Movant(s):

      21st Mortgage Corporation Represented By Amy Dukes

      Diane Weifenbach

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20308


      Joseph Liebgott, IV and Robby Jean Harrison


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 35694 Sierra Lane, Yucaipa, CA 92399 Under 11 U.S.C. § 362.


      MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 60

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: Debtors


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 6. DENY alternative request under ¶13 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joseph Liebgott IV Represented By John F Brady

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Robby Jean Harrison Represented By John F Brady

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Joseph Liebgott, IV and Robby Jean Harrison


      Chapter 13

      Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Mark S Krause Ashley Popowitz

      Dane W Exnowski

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20759


      Elida Soto


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13692 Bedford Place, Victorville, CA 92392


      MOVANT: NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, LLC


      From: 7/30/19, 8/27/19, 10/1/19 EH       

      Docket 40

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/7/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      7/30/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Elida Soto Represented By

      William G Cort

      Movant(s):

      NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, Represented By

      Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11204


      Gregory Lee Haan, Jr. and Yisel Haan


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 24557 Wisteria Lane, Moreno Valley, CA 92557


      MOVANT: MIDFIRST BANK


      EH   


      Docket 32

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gregory Lee Haan Jr. Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yisel Haan Represented By

      Terrence Fantauzzi

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Gregory Lee Haan, Jr. and Yisel Haan


      Chapter 13

      MidFirst Bank Represented By Gilbert R Yabes Merdaud Jafarnia Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16633


      Dennis Kent Gilman and Leesa Marie Gilman


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 24035 Sweet William Lane, Murrieta, CA 92562


      MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC


      EH   


      Docket 11

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.



      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Dennis Kent Gilman Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Leesa Marie Gilman Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Movant(s):


      Dennis Kent Gilman and Leesa Marie Gilman

      Carey C Pickford


      Chapter 7

      Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By

      Nancy L Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17009


      Joshua William Watters and Kari Anne Watters


      Chapter 7


      #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Cadillac ATS, VIN:1G6AA5RA3E0100761


      MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES INC


      EH   


      Docket 15

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joshua William Watters Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kari Anne Watters Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Joshua William Watters and Kari Anne Watters


      Chapter 7

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17216


      Gary Freelen Ellison and Rachelle Malbrough Ellison


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13207 Kayuga Street, Victorville, CA 92392


      MOVANT: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      EH   


      Docket 8

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gary Freelen Ellison Represented By Neil R Hedtke

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Rachelle Malbrough Ellison Represented By Neil R Hedtke

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Gary Freelen Ellison and Rachelle Malbrough Ellison


      Chapter 7

      HSBC Bank USA, National Represented By Nancy L Lee Merdaud Jafarnia

      Trustee(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17454


      Andrea A Duncan


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 7132 Colwyn Ave, Highland, California 92346


      MOVANT: CREATIVE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC


      EH   


      Docket 28

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶ 2. DENY request under ¶ 5 because there is no co-debtor. DENY alternative request under ¶12 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Andrea A Duncan Represented By Marc A Goldbach

      Movant(s):

      Creative Investment Group, Inc. Represented By Julian K Bach

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Andrea A Duncan


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17489


      David Aaron Graves and Kendra Clairice Graves


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Nissan NV3500 Passenger


      MOVANT: THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION


      EH    


      Docket 15

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.



      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      David Aaron Graves Represented By Carey C Pickford

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kendra Clairice Graves Represented By Carey C Pickford

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      David Aaron Graves and Kendra Clairice Graves


      Chapter 13

      Golden 1 Credit Union Represented By Mirco J Haag

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17784


      Up Lim


      Chapter 7


      #16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 BMW X3 xDrive28i Sport Utility 4D


      MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST


      EH       


      Docket 8

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Up Lim Represented By

      Jaenam J Coe

      Movant(s):

      Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By

      Cheryl A Skigin

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18100


      Jeniece M Neese


      Chapter 7


      #17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, VIN: 1GCG C23U 44F1 08012


      MOVANT: MECHANICS BANK


      EH   


      Docket 8

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶11 as moot.

      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jeniece M Neese Represented By William Gregg Bill H Gregg

      Movant(s):

      MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18712

      Casildo Guerra, JR.

      Chapter 13


      #18.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property at 29731 Mesa Verde Circle, Menifee, CA 92584


      MOVANT: CASILDO GUERRA, JR


      EH    


      Docket 13

      Tentative Ruling:

      TENTATIVE RULING:


      10/29/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      The Court having reviewed the motion, notice acceptable, no opposition having been filed, and appearing that Debtor has provided sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(II)(aa) that the case was not filed in good faith, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the automatic stay as to all creditors.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Casildo Guerra JR. Represented By

      W. Derek May

      Movant(s):

      Casildo Guerra JR. Represented By

      W. Derek May

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Casildo Guerra, JR.


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16210


      Edward Joey Mish, Jr


      Chapter 13


      #18.10 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 12476 13th St, Yucaipa, 92399


      MOVANT: EDWARD & WENDY SOUSA AS TRUSTEES OF THE SOUSA REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST


      EH   


      Docket 42

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      10/29/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 4.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Edward Joey Mish Jr Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Movant(s):

      Edward & Wendy Sousa As Trustees Represented By

      William E Windham

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:17-15816


      Integrated Wealth Management Inc


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:19-01100 Issa v. Delaney et al


      #19.00 Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Ryan Delaney Also #20

      EH    


      Docket 12

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Integrated Wealth Management Inc Represented By

      Andrew B Levin Robert E Opera Jim D Bauch

      Defendant(s):

      Ryan Delaney Represented By Paul A Reynolds

      John Wong Represented By

      David P Bleistein

      Movant(s):

      Ryan Delaney Represented By Paul A Reynolds

      Plaintiff(s):

      J. Michael Issa Represented By Joseph R Ignatuk

      2:00 PM

      6:17-15816


      Integrated Wealth Management Inc


      Chapter 11

      Adv#: 6:19-01100 Issa v. Delaney et al


      #20.00 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding by Defendant John Wong Also #19

      EH   


      Docket 16

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/1/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Integrated Wealth Management Inc Represented By

      Andrew B Levin Robert E Opera Jim D Bauch

      Defendant(s):

      Ryan Delaney Represented By Paul A Reynolds

      John Wong Represented By

      David P Bleistein

      Movant(s):

      John Wong Represented By

      David P Bleistein

      Plaintiff(s):

      J. Michael Issa Represented By Joseph R Ignatuk

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #21.00 (Jointly Administered - LEAD CASE)

      CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 5/21/19, 7/30/19 Also #22-#25

      EH   


      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #22.00 (Jointly Administered with Wildomar Ace Hardware Inc)

      CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 5/21/19, 7/30/19 Also #21-#25

      EH   


      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #23.00 (Jointly Administered with 9 Fingers Inc)

      CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 5/21/19, 7/30/19 Also #21-#25

      EH   


      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #24.00 (Jointly Administered with Riverside Ace Hardware Inc)

      CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 5/21/19, 7/30/19 Also #21-#25

      EH   


      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:19-13127


      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #25.00 (Jointly Administered with P&P Hardware Inc)

      CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 5/21/19, 7/30/19 Also #21-#24

      EH   


      Docket 2


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

      Robert B Rosenstein

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10155


      Jose De Jesus Hernandez


      Chapter 11


      #26.00 CONT Motion for approval of the adequacy of the chapter 11 disclosure statement


      From: 1/29/19, 3/5/19, 6/11/19, 8/20/19 Also #27

      EH   


      Docket 111


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan

      Movant(s):

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan Eric Bensamochan

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10155


      Jose De Jesus Hernandez


      Chapter 11


      #27.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 1/29/19, 3/5/19, 6/11/19, 8/20/19


      Also #26 EH   

      Docket 96


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

      Eric Bensamochan

      2:00 PM

      6:18-12807


      G Hurtado Construction, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #28.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 5/8/18, 8/21/18, 9/11/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/6/18, 12/18/18, 3/5/19, 3/26/19, 8/20/19


      EH   


      Docket 18


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      G Hurtado Construction, Inc. Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10628


      Markus Anthony Boyd


      Chapter 11


      #29.00 CONT Motion for approval of chapter 11 disclosure statement From: 10/8/19

      Also #30 EH   

      Docket 181


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

      Movant(s):

      Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

      2:00 PM

      6:18-10628


      Markus Anthony Boyd


      Chapter 11


      #30.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 3/20/18, 8/21/18, 10/23/18, 11/27/18, 2/5/19, 5/7/19, 7/30/19, 10/8/19


      Also #29 EH   

      Docket 16


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Markus Anthony Boyd Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #31.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case From: 7/16/19, 8/20/19

      Also #32-#34


      EH       


      Docket 162


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      Movant(s):

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #32.00 CONT United States Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case or to Convert Case From: 5/28/19, 7/16/19, 8/20/19

      Also #31-#34


      EH   


      Docket 138


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      Movant(s):

      United States Trustee (RS) Represented By Everett L Green

      Abram Feuerstein esq

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #33.00 CONT First Interim Fee Application of Terzian Law Group, A Professional Corporation, Attorney for Debtor and Debtor in Possession for Tamar Terzian, Debtor's Attorney, Period: 7/23/2018 to 6/15/2019, Fee: $57487.50, Expenses:

      $3178.12.


      From: 7/16/19, 8/27/19 Also #31-#34

      EH    


      Docket 160


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      Movant(s):

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      2:00 PM

      6:18-16149


      Richard Garavito


      Chapter 11


      #34.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


      From: 8/21/18, 10/16/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18, 1/15/19, 2/5/19, 4/16/19, 5/28/19, 7/16/19, 8/20/19


      Also #31-#33


      EH    


      Docket 7


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20002


      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23631 Rhea Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92557


      MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC DBA MR. COOPER AS SERVICING AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


      From: 8/20/19, 10/1/19 EH   

      Docket 42

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      8/20/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

      Movant(s):

      Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Nancy L Lee Gilbert R Yabes

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-10273


      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Bankruptcy Case EH       

      Docket 67

      Tentative Ruling:

      10/31/19

      BACKGROUND


      On January 13, 2019, Maisha Ghant-Elie ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtor had previously had a Chapter 13 case dismissed on November 8, 2018, for failure to make plan payments. On January 31, 2019, the Court orally granted Debtor’s motion to continue the automatic stay, although the Court notes that no order was ever lodged. The Court also notes that Debtor had a motion to value property granted at a hearing on March 28, 2019, and no order was ever lodged for that motion either.


      Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed on April 30, 2019. On August 21, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to make plan payments. A hearing was set for September 19, 2019. At the time of the hearing, Debtor had cured the outstanding delinquency at the time that the motion to dismiss was filed, but was now behind on her September plan payment. Not being presented with an adequate explanation from Debtor’s counsel, the Court dismissed the case on September 19, 2019.


      On October 3, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate dismissal. On October 7, 2019, Trustee filed comments indicating approval of the motion to vacate dismissed, conditioned upon: (1) Debtor making all payments which would have been due under the plan (2 payments); and (2) Debtor addressing the infeasibility of the plan. On

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


      Chapter 13

      October 18, 2019, Debtor’s counsel filed a declaration indicating that he was in possession of the required funds.


      DISCUSSION



      I. FRCP 60(B) – Excusable Neglect


      FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1) states:


  2. Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

    1. mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect


Here, Debtors argue that the order of dismissal was a result of excusable neglect. When, as is the case here, it appears that neglect caused the dismissal, the Court must determine whether the neglect was excusable. Pioneer provides guidance on the standard for excusable:


With regard to determining whether a party’s neglect of a deadline is excusable, we are in substantial agreement with the factors identified by the Court of Appeals. Because Congress has provided no other guideposts for determining what sorts of neglect will be considered "excusable," we conclude that the determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission. These include, as the Court of Appeals found, the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and

11:00 AM

CONT...


Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie

whether the movant acted in good faith.


Chapter 13



Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).. In making this determination, the Court must consider the actions of Debtors and their counsel. See id. at 397. Excusable neglect "encompass[es] situations in which the failure to comply with a filing deadline is attributable to negligence." Id. at 394.


Regarding the first factor, prejudice, the Court notes that it has not received any opposition to the instant motion and, assuming compliance with the conditions stated in the Trustee’s comments, it would not appear that any party would suffer legal prejudice from the dismissal being vacated.


Regarding the second factor, length of delay, Debtor waited for fourteen days before filing the instant motion to vacate dismissal. The court considers this delay to be relatively de minimis. Furthermore, the delay between when the September plan payment was due (September 13) and when the plan payment was made (October 1) is relatively insignificant.


Regarding the third factor, whether the delay was within the reasonable control of the movant, Debtor appears to have had the ability to timely make the September plan payment, but erroneously thought that the payment was due the next week.


Regarding the fourth factor, good faith, it appears that Debtor is acting in good faith. The evidence submitted to the Court demonstrates that Debtor took steps to promptly and fully cure all outstanding deficiencies associated with her case as soon as she realized that she had miscalendared the hearing date.


Because vacating dismissal would not cause significant prejudice or significant delay, and because it appears Debtor has acted in good faith, the Pioneer factors weigh in

11:00 AM

CONT...


Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie


Chapter 13

favor of vacating dismissal.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, VACATING dismissal.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED. John Brady to personally appear.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Maisha Lenette Ghant-Elie Represented By John F Brady John F Brady John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10415


Lewis K. Chism and Latoya A. Chism


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


From: 10/17/19 EH   

Docket 50


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Lewis K. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

Latoya A. Chism Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13374


Michael Arthur Eidsvoog and Kathyryn Michelle Eidsvoog


Chapter 13


#4.00 Motion and Debtor's Opposition to Trustee's Proposed Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan


EH       


Docket 39

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Arthur Eidsvoog Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Kathyryn Michelle Eidsvoog Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15270


La Chatta P Hunter


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 9/19/19, 10/17/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

La Chatta P Hunter Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16068


John B Jensen


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/3/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John B Jensen Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16207


Christian Flores


Chapter 13


#7.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/17/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christian Flores Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16413


Charles Edward Nathanie Wright and Malika Unami


Chapter 13


#8.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/17/19

EH    


Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Charles Edward Nathanie Wright Represented By

April E Roberts

Joint Debtor(s):

Malika Unami Wright Represented By April E Roberts

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16558


Debra S Towne


Chapter 13


#9.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Debra S Towne Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16560


Orlando Soriano and Veronica Vera-Soriano


Chapter 13


#10.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Orlando Soriano Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Joint Debtor(s):

Veronica Vera-Soriano Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16570


Darryl Hernandez


Chapter 13


#11.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Darryl Hernandez Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16586


Miguel Perez


Chapter 13


#12.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Miguel Perez Represented By

Peter L Nisson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16611


Vincent James Carabba


Chapter 13


#13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Vincent James Carabba Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16654


Liliya Kisliuk


Chapter 13


#14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Liliya Kisliuk Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16658


Stephanie McCravey Cooper


Chapter 13


#15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephanie McCravey Cooper Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16677


Denver Charles Cooley, Jr and Tracy Lee Cooley


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Denver Charles Cooley Jr Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Tracy Lee Cooley Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16691


John Martin Laser


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John Martin Laser Represented By Norma Duenas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16728


Patrocinio Castaneda and Liliana Salgado


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Patrocinio Castaneda Represented By

George C Panagiotou

Joint Debtor(s):

Liliana Salgado Represented By

George C Panagiotou

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16736


Sheri L. Orellana


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sheri L. Orellana Represented By Kevin M Mahan

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16772


Grace Gonzales


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Grace Gonzales Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16777


Michael Alba


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Alba Represented By Laleh Ensafi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16782


Raymond Edward Reeley


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Raymond Edward Reeley Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16791


Robert Joseph Slapp, III


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Robert Joseph Slapp III Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16809


Josephine H Holguin


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Josephine H Holguin Represented By Richard L Barrett

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16815


Carl John Larson, Jr.


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carl John Larson Jr. Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16831


Paul Kirkwood


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Paul Kirkwood Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16832


Mario Chiong and Nona Chiong


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mario Chiong Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Nona Chiong Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16881


Juan Manuel Andrade and Cecilia R Andrade


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: RESCHEDULED TO 1/2/20 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Juan Manuel Andrade Represented By

J.D. Cuzzolina

Joint Debtor(s):

Cecilia R Andrade Represented By

J.D. Cuzzolina

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16889


Viridiana Flores


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Viridiana Flores Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16904


Keisha Renette Williams


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Keisha Renette Williams Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16912


William Andrew Gray


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

William Andrew Gray Represented By Stephen L Burton

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16926


Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16941


Latacia D Sanders


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Latacia D Sanders Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16963


Dan Parr and Ida Parr


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Dan Parr Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Ida Parr Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16977


Mark E Harvey


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark E Harvey Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16979


Flor Aguilar


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Flor Aguilar Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16985


Sharna Dobbins


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sharna Dobbins Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17818


Martha Calleros


Chapter 13


#38.00 Motion by United States Trustee to Dimiss Chapter 13 Case with a Re-filing Bar EH   

Docket 9

Tentative Ruling:

10/31/19

BACKGROUND


On October 3, 2019, Martha Calleros ("Debtor") filed a skeletal Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtor has had bankruptcy cases previously dismissed in: (1) 1999; (2) 2016;

  1. February 2017; (4) July 2017; (5) March 2019; and (6) July 2019. All five of the cases since 2016 were dismissed for failure to file information.


    The balance of Debtor’s case commencement documents were due September 19, 2019. Debtor did not file the balance of the case commencement documents. On September 23, 2019, UST filed a motion to dismiss the case with a one-year bar to refiling.


    DISCUSSION



    Regarding UST’s request to dismiss the case, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) provides a non- exhaustive list of grounds for dismissal of a Chapter 13 case. Sections 1307(c)(1), (3), (4), and (9) all provide grounds to dismiss a Chapter 13 case when the debtor files a skeletal petition and fails to take any further action to prosecute the case. Section

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Martha Calleros


    Chapter 13

    1307(c) instructs the Court, however, to consider whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors. UST has not addressed whether dismissal or conversion would be in the best interests of creditors.


    Assuming that dismissal is in the best interests of creditors, the court notes that it empowered to impose a refiling bar under 11 U.S.C. § 349(a). As COLLIER notes, courts’ analysis of this section is somewhat confused due to confounding "dismissal with prejudice" with "dismissal with injunction against future filings." COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 349.02[3]; compare In re Garcia, 479 B.R. 488 (Bankr. N.D. Ind.

    2012) (denying motion for dismissal with prejudice, but imposing three-year refiling bar) with In re Craighead, 377 B.R. 648 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2007) (appearing to equate dismissal with prejudice with an injunction against refiling).


    There is also a circuit split concerning whether an injunction on refiling for more than 180 days is allowed under the Bankruptcy Code. Compare In re Frieouf, 938 F.2d 1099 (10th Cir. 1991) (180 days is maximum allowed length of refiling injunction) with Casse v. Key Bank Nat. Ass’n, 198 F.3d 327 (2nd Cir. 1999) (injunction against filing for more than 180 days permissible). 11 U.S.C. § 349(a) reads:


    Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title.


    The disagreement revolves around whether the qualifier "Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise" modifies the content after the semi-colon. In re Leavitt noted this disagreement, but since the court was dealing with a dismissal with prejudice, rather than an injunction against refiling, it did not resolve the issue. 209 B.R. 935, 942 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997). Within the Ninth Circuit, it appears the trend is to adopt the reasoning of the Second Circuit and allow injunctions for more than 180 days, and the Court agrees with that reading of the statute. See e.g. In re Velasques, 2012 WL 8255582 at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012).


    Here, the instant bankruptcy is Debtor’s sixth skeletal filing in the previous three

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Martha Calleros


    Chapter 13

    years. Furthermore, Debtor failed to disclose any previous filings in the voluntary petition, which is signed under penalty of perjury. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to find the requested one-year refiling bar to be appropriate in the circumstances presented.


    Moreover, Debtor’s failure to oppose is deemed consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


    TENTATIVE RULING



    UST to address whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Martha Calleros Pro Se

    Movant(s):

    United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

    Abram Feuerstein esq

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-13923


    Suzanne Berry


    Chapter 13


    #38.10 Motion to vacate order 109(g) Restriction EH   

    Docket 46

    Tentative Ruling:

    10/31/2019

    BACKGROUND


    On May 10, 2017, Suzanne Berry ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On July 7, 2017, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed.


    On May 31, 2018, Champion Mortgage Company ("Creditor") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay. Debtor did not file any opposition to the motion for relief from stay. Nevertheless, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for relief from stay twice, and Creditor ultimately withdrew the motion.


    On August 6, 2019, Creditor filed a second motion for relief from the automatic stay. Once again, Debtor did not file any opposition to the motion for relief from the automatic stay. The Court required appearances at the hearing of September 3, 2019, but no appearance was made for Debtor at the hearing. Creditor’s motion for relief from stay was granted by order entered on September 9, 2019. On October 21, 2019, Debtor filed a request for voluntary dismissal of her Chapter 13 case. In the request for voluntary dismissal, Debtor specifically cited the relief from stay obtained by Creditor as the reason for the voluntary dismissal.

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Suzanne Berry


    Chapter 13

    On October 23, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to vacate the § 109(g) re-filing bar and an application shortening time. The Court approved the application, setting a hearing for October 31, 2019. On October 25, 2019, the Chapter 13 Trustee filed comments indicating that it took no position, while providing caselaw for Debtor to review. On October 28, 2019, Debtor filed a supplemental legal brief in support of its request.


    DISCUSSION



    11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2)(2010) states:

    (g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no individual or family farmer may be a debtor under this title who has been a debtor in a case pending under this title at any time in the preceding 180 days if-


    1. the debtor requested and obtained the voluntary dismissal of the case following the filing of a request for relief from the automatic stay provided by section 362 of this title.


      As noted by the Chapter 13 Trustee, a recent bankruptcy decision outlined the split in authority in interpreting 11 U.S.C. § 109(g). See In re Evansingston, 2019 WL 4410514 at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2019). Specifically, In re Evansginston identified four new interpretations: (1) the mandatory approach; (2) the discretionary or equitable approach; (3) the pending motion approach; and (4) the causal connection approach. Id; see also Ned Waxman, Judicial Follies: Ignoring the Plain Meaning of Bankruptcy Code § 109(g)(2), 48 ARIZ. L. REV. 149 (2006). Here, it is clear that Debtor’s voluntarily dismissal of her cause was proximately caused by the relief from stay obtained by Creditor, so Debtor must persuade this Court to adopt either the second or the third approaches.


      In support of the pending motion approach, Debtor cites two cases: (1) In re Jones, 99

      B.R. 412 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1989); and (2) In re Richter, 2010 WL 4272915 (Bankr.

      N.D. Iowa 2010). The Court notes that these are the two cases referred to in In re Evansingston as following the pending motion approach. In re Jones contains no legal

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Suzanne Berry


      Chapter 13

      analysis whatsoever, simply concluding that "Section 109(g)(2) applies only if there is a contested matter pending at the time of the voluntary dismissal." 99 B.R. at 413. In support of this conclusion, the Court in In re Jones cited two cases. Neither of these cases contains legal analysis of any detail either, and one of the cases, Matter of Milton, 82 B.R. 637 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1988), deals with a situation where there was a tentative settlement of the motion for relief from stay. In fact, when presented with an argument citing In re Jones and the two cases it relied upon, one bankruptcy court recently stated the following:


      The three cases cited by Debtor, which appear to be the only cases holding that there need be a "pending" motion for relief from stay are simply, in this Court’s view, bad law. Nowhere in the three opinions is there set forth any discussion or rational basis for the holding that there must be a pending motion for relief at the time of the dismissal of the debtors first bankruptcy case. This view is erroneous because of both the language of the status and the purpose for which it was enacted. The language of § 109(g)(2) contains no reference whatsoever to a requirement that the motion be pending. It simply says "following the filing of a request for relief from the automatic stay." Such a restrictive reading of § 109(g)(2) would eviscerate the underlying policy rationale for the rule.


      In re Gill, 584 B.R. 63, 70 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2018).


      The second case cited by Debtor, In re Richter, does contain helpful legal analysis. Importantly, however, the analysis provided in In re Richter does not appear to support Debtor’s position. Specifically, In re Richter stated the following:


      In particular, this Court finds the reasoning of the "pending motion" (i.e. one not already resolved) analysis persuasive. In those cases, courts have applied an exception to dismissal under § 109(g)(2) when there has been a resolution of the motion for relief from stay before the voluntary dismissal of the earlier case occurred.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Suzanne Berry


      Chapter 13


      The "pending motion" approach tailors the interpretation of § 109(g)(2) to address only the abuse prevention concerns Congress sought to address. The approach recognizes that when a motion for relief from stay is pending it is important that such a motion not be thwarted by debtors who voluntarily dismiss in order to frustrate a creditor, then turn around, and abusively refile. However, the approach also recognizes there is no purpose in barring the filing of a second case when a motion for relief is resolved or rendered moot, before the voluntary dismissal.


      The Court also finds, as the Supreme did in Hamilton, that rejection of the mechanical interpretation of § 109(g)(2) is consistent with leading bankruptcy treatises. The Collier treatise specifically states:


      The goal of section 109(g) is to curb abuses of the bankruptcy system . . . In light of its purpose, it should not be applicable if the debtor successfully defended against or resolved the motion for relief from the stay or paid in full the creditor who moved for

      relief . . .Certainly, the purpose of preventing abusive refilings is not served when the motion for relief and the dismissal are totally unrelated.


      2010 WL 4272915 at *6-7 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa. 2010) (citations omitted). This analysis, and the corresponding caselaw, makes clear that the pending motion approach is designed to create an exception in cases where the motion for relief from stay was resolved because it was withdrawn, denied, or an agreement was reached between the parties. Neither In re Richter nor the cases it cited dealt with situations where a motion for relief from stay was granted, the Debtor voluntarily dismissed the case because relief from stay was granted, and subsequently wants to file an additional case specifically to delay or hinder the creditor who obtained relief from stay.


      The analysis in In re Richter leads this Court to conclude that the "pending motion"

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Suzanne Berry


      Chapter 13

      approach is not really a separate approach, but simply, a subset of either the casual connection approach or the discretionary approach. The Court notes that this approach is not even mentioned in some discussions of the varying interpretations. For example, GINSBERG & MARTIN ON BANKRUPTCY § 3.02 [5th ed. 2019] states the following:


      Courts are divided on the application of Section 109(g). There are three primary approaches. The majority approach is the "mandatory" approach. Under this approach, if a debtor requests and obtains a voluntary dismissal after a party moved for relief from stay, that person is not eligible for bankruptcy relief in the 180 days after dismissal, with no further inquiry needed. The "causal connection" approach requires a judicial determination of the causal relationship between the two subsections of 109(g). The "discretionary" approach endorses the mandatory approach but authorizes the court to exercise discretion when necessary to achieve justice.


      [footnotes omitted].


      Additionally, the Court finds the holistic, discretionary approach to be unpersuasive. The case primarily cited in support of the discretionary approach, In re Luna, 122 B.R. 575 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1991), contains the following as the entirety of its legal analysis:


      We decline to follow the line of authority which requires mandatory application of section 109(g)(2). Mechanical application of section 109(g)(2) would reward Home Savings for acting in bad faith and punish Luna for acting in good faith. Accordingly, because legislative enactments should never be construed as establishing statutory schemes that are illogical, unjust, or capricious", we conclude that the bankruptcy court properly declined to apply section 109(g)(2) to Luna’s second bankruptcy petition.


      122 B.R. at 577. First, the Court notes that the factual situation presented in In re Luna is very unique and not analogous to this situation. Second, this Court believes that the approach in In re Luna is precluded by Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014).

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Suzanne Berry


      Chapter 13

      The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s subsequent remarks in support of In re Luna make this more clear: "Section 109(g)(2) is not jurisdictional in nature and, therefore, the bankruptcy court has discretion to suspend the application of the statute and not dismiss a debtor’s case under certain circumstances." In re Leafty, 479 B.R. 545 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2012). After Law v. Siegel, however, this Court does not believe it has authority to suspend a statute that does not provide for use of discretion.


      As has been noted in this ruling, the majority approach to interpreting 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2) is to conclude that its application is mandatory. While some courts, even after Siegel, continue to follow the causal relationship approach, this Court need not choose between the two approaches because neither would result in a ruling favorable to Debtor. The other two approaches, the "pending motion" approach and the "discretionary" approach, are not supported by any recent caselaw and are unpersuasive.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Suzanne Berry Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Movant(s):

      Suzanne Berry Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Suzanne Berry


      Chapter 13

      11:01 AM

      6:14-19520


      Jeffrey B Jordan


      Chapter 13


      #39.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/3/19

      EH       


      Docket 71


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jeffrey B Jordan Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-10879


      Luke Reynolds


      Chapter 13


      #40.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 40


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Luke Reynolds Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-14501


      Vonetta M Mays


      Chapter 13


      #41.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 215


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Vonetta M Mays Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-13030


      Richard Hill Lindsay and Laura Lee Lindsay


      Chapter 13


      #42.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 139


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Hill Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Laura Lee Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-16946


      Elliott Howard Blue, Jr and Yvette Blue


      Chapter 13


      #43.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19

      EH   


      Docket 104


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Elliott Howard Blue Jr Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yvette Blue Represented By

      Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-21234


      Frank A Horzen and Barbara A Horzen


      Chapter 13


      #44.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 136

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/29/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Frank A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Barbara A Horzen Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-21236


      Ronald A Waters and Trisha Waters


      Chapter 13


      #45.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 84

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/29/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ronald A Waters Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Trisha Waters Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-14292


      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed


      Chapter 13


      #46.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19

      EH   


      Docket 91


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lubna Shiraz Ahmed Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-19614


      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta and Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta


      Chapter 13


      #47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 111


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Alfredo Manzo Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mayte Hernandez- Arrieta Represented By Andy C Warshaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-15026


      Joe R Garcia


      Chapter 13


      #48.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 50


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Joe R Garcia Represented By

      Neil R Hedtke

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-16643


      Jesus N Aguilera


      Chapter 13


      #49.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 43


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jesus N Aguilera Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-18158


      Jorge Leon and Alicia Leon


      Chapter 13


      #50.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 45


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jorge Leon Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Alicia Leon Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-20547


      Tawnie L Vanderham


      Chapter 13


      #51.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19, 10/3/19

      EH       


      Docket 53


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Tawnie L Vanderham Represented By Benjamin R Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-10001


      Jose Diaz and Betty Diaz


      Chapter 13


      #52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 32


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Diaz Represented By

      Nima S Vokshori

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Betty Diaz Represented By

      Nima S Vokshori

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-10071


      John M. Betham and Dana M. Betham


      Chapter 13


      #53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John M. Betham Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dana M. Betham Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-10934


      Jorge Ramirez and Evelia Ramirez


      Chapter 13


      #54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 31


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jorge Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Evelia Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-12186


      Roshanda Jeannen Dodds


      Chapter 13


      #55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/19/19, 10/17/19

      EH       


      Docket 31


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Roshanda Jeannen Dodds Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-15119


      Rodolfo Domingo Plado and Esmenia Rivera Plado


      Chapter 13


      #56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 85

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/29/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rodolfo Domingo Plado Represented By Dana Travis

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Esmenia Rivera Plado Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15524


      Thanaa Victor Fransis


      Chapter 13


      #57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 57


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Thanaa Victor Fransis Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-14735


      Trinen Arniese Pratt


      Chapter 13


      #58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 27


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Trinen Arniese Pratt Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:14-11597


      Taylor J. Bretz


      Chapter 13


      #59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 240


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Taylor J. Bretz Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-14835


      Bennea Cynthia Travis


      Chapter 13


      #60.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 106


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Bennea Cynthia Travis Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15730


      James Whitby and Patricia Lineweaver


      Chapter 13


      #61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 53

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 10/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      James Whitby Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Patricia Lineweaver Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-11911


      Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


      Chapter 13


      #62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 59


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      1:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01319 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #1.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

      01/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

      12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

      10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

      11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/27/19,

      3/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/10/19, Advanced From: 9/18/19, 9/10/19 EH      

      Docket 1

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

      Michael I. Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      1:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      James P Previti Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Larry Day Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Neil M Miller Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      Paul Roman Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld P Sabin Willett

      O'Melveny & Myers, LLP Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Peter T. Healy Represented By Howard Steinberg P Sabin Willett

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Peter M Bransten

      Michael I. Gottfried Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur

      Alexander J Suarez

      1:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

      Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

      1:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:09-01235 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #2.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

      1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

      12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

      10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

      11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/19,

      3/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/10/19, 9/18/19


      EH      


      Docket 1

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

      Michael I. Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      David Loughnot Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      1:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K. DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I. Gottfried

      Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      John P. Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur Alexander J Suarez

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

      Amy Evans

      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond

      1:00 PM

      6:08-14592


      Empire Land, LLC


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:10-01329 DIAMOND v. Empire Partners, Inc., a California Corporation et


      #3.00 CONT Status Conference re complaint

      (Defendant - Empire Partners, Inc) HOLDING DATE


      From: 3/6/13, 6/5/13, 9/11/13, 11/13/13,12/18/13, 2/5/14, 3/12/14, 4/9/14, 4/16/14, 5/21/14, 8/27/14, 8/28/14, 9/10/14, 9/29/14, 11/10/14, 11/19/14,

      1/21/15, 1/28/15, 2/19/15, 3/24/15, 5/28/15, 6/23/15, 8/12/15, 9/18/15, 10/6/15,

      12/8/15, 1/20/16, 2/18/16, 3/23/16, 4/5/16, 4/13/16, 4/22/16, 6/6/16, 7/25/16,

      10/3/16, 11/14/16, 1/23/17, 2/27/17, 4/24/17, 6/26/17, 8/2/17, 10/25/17,

      11/27/17, 3/5/18, 6/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/5/18, 12/19/18, 1/16/19, 3/13/27,

      3/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/10/19, 9/18/19


      EH      


      Docket 1

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Empire Land, LLC Represented By James Stang Robert M Saunders

      Michael I. Gottfried

      ------ O'melveny & Myers Dean A Ziehl

      Jonathan A Loeb P Sabin Willett

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Defendant(s):

      Empire Partners, Inc., a California Represented By

      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      James P Previti Represented By

      1:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld


      Chapter 7

      Previti Realty Fund, L.P. Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      The James Previti Family Trust Represented By Jonathan A Loeb Jeffrey Rosenfeld

      Plaintiff(s):

      RICHARD K DIAMOND Represented By

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Michael I. Gottfried

      Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      John P. Reitman Peter M Bransten Cynthia M Cohen Roye Zur Alexander J Suarez

      Trustee(s):

      Richard K Diamond (TR) Represented By Michael I. Gottfried

      Richard S Berger - SUSPENDED - Rodger M. Landau

      Richard K Diamond Peter M Bransten Aleksandra Zimonjic Monica Rieder

      Lisa N Nobles Peter J. Gurfein Paul Hastings Roye Zur

      Amy Evans

      1:00 PM

      CONT...


      Empire Land, LLC


      Best Best & Krieger Franklin C Adams Thomas J Eastmond


      Chapter 7

      11:00 AM

      6:15-19432


      Kirk Eugene Frantz and Mary Elizabeth Frantz


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 152079 Rio Vista Road, Big River, CA 92242


      MOVANT: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


      From: 5/28/19, 6/4/19, 7/9/19, 7/30/19; 9/10/19 EH   

      Docket 155

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 11/4/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kirk Eugene Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mary Elizabeth Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Movant(s):

      Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as Represented By

      Erin M McCartney Edward G Schloss

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17878


      Sumanta Chakravarti and Madhumita Chakravarti


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota Camry


      MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


      EH       


      Docket 49


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      11 U.S.C. § 365(p)(1) provides for termination of the automatic stay as a matter of law if a lease of personal property is not timely assumed. 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(2) imposes a deadline of plan confirmation to assume a personal property lease in a Chapter 13 case. Here, Debtor’s plan not having provided for assumption of the underlying lease, the automatic stay has terminated as a matter of law. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sumanta Chakravarti Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Madhumita Chakravarti Represented By Paul Y Lee

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Sumanta Chakravarti and Madhumita Chakravarti


      Chapter 13

      Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Represented By

      Austin P Nagel

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-19704


      Leticia Arthur


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Toyota Rav4 .


      MOVANT: TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION


      EH   


      Docket 25


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to the terms of the adequate protection agreement filed by the parties on November 1, 2019, as docket number 29.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Leticia Arthur Represented By Donald J Gagnon III

      Movant(s):

      Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By

      Austin P Nagel

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-20176


      Garry Kenneth Frazier


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 21851 Mohican Ave. Apple Valley CA 92307


      MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


      EH       


      Docket 37


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears and adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Garry Kenneth Frazier Represented By John F Brady

      Movant(s):

      Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Christina J Khil Dane W Exnowski

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11933


      Maxine Tann


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 16260 Via Corto E. Desert Hot Springs, California 92240 . (Mantovani, Bonni)


      MOVANT: CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY


      EH   


      Docket 23

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/31/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Maxine Tann Represented By

      Christopher Hewitt

      Movant(s):

      Champion Mortgage Company., et al Represented By

      Bonni S Mantovani

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-15460


      Frank Rubin Carrillo


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Volkswagen Passat 1.8T S Sedan 4D


      MOVANT: EXETER FINANCE, LLC


      EH   


      Docket 29


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) for lack of cause shown. Specifically, the Court notes that the motion does not provide any evidence of the fair market value of the subject collateral. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶ 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Frank Rubin Carrillo Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Exeter Finance, LLC Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Frank Rubin Carrillo


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17224


      Jose Luis Hernandez


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, VIN: 3GCUKREC9HG169170


      MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC


      EH       


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/05/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(1)(A) provides:


      (h)(1) In a case in which the debtor is an individual, the stay provided by subsection (a) is terminated with respect to personal property of the estate or of the debtor securing in whole or in part a claim, or subject to an unexpired lease, and such personal property shall no longer be property of the estate if the debtor fails within the applicable time set by section 521(a)(2) –

      1. to file time any statement of intention required under section 521(a)(2) with respect to such personal property or to indicate in such statement that the debtor will either surrender such personal property or retain it and, if retaining such personal property, either redeem such personal property pursuant to section 722, enter into an agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c) applicable to the debt secured by such personal property, or assume such unexpired lease pursuant to section 365(p) if the trustee does not do so, as

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Jose Luis Hernandez

      applicable;


      Chapter 7


      (emphasis added). Here, Debtor’s statement of intention appears to select "ride-through," which is not one of the available options identified in § 362(h)(1)(A) and is not permitted in the Ninth Circuit. In re Dumont, 581 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the automatic stay has terminated as a matter of law. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Luis Hernandez Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By

      Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17393


      Gabriel Perez and Janyn Perez


      Chapter 7


      #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3464 Harrison Avenue Lake Elsinore, California 92530


      MOVANT: CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY


      EH       


      Docket 14


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/05/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      Movant to confirm arrears have been cured. The Court also notes that, based upon the amended schedules of Debtor, filed October 21, 2019, the only evidence before the Court regarding the fair market value of the subject property indicates that there is a significant equity cushion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gabriel Perez Represented By Glen J Biondi

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Janyn Perez Represented By

      Glen J Biondi

      Movant(s):

      California Housing Finance Agency Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Gabriel Perez and Janyn Perez


      Anna Landa


      Chapter 7

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17944


      Adolfo Gonzales and Elda Gonzales


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Dodge Ram, VIN 1C6RR6FTXFS530093


      MOVANT: SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


      EH   


      Docket 16


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(2) because the motion does not allege any grounds for relief. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adolfo Gonzales Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Elda Gonzales Represented By Christopher J Langley

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Adolfo Gonzales and Elda Gonzales


      Chapter 7

      SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

      Trustee(s):

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18850


      Sonia Salguero


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property


      MOVANT: SONIA SALGUERO


      EH       


      Docket 15


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Improper Opposition: None


      The Court notes that the proof of service included in the original motion identifies a service date, in four different locations, of October 1, 2019. This date, however, is prepetition and is, therefore, not a possible service. The supplemental proof of service filed by Debtor is signed on October 28, 2019, but for two of the three sections identifies a service date of October 21, 2019. In the third section, however, a service date of September 23, 2019, is listed. Debtor’s counsel to address the service deficiencies.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sonia Salguero Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Movant(s):

      Sonia Salguero Represented By Christopher J Langley

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Sonia Salguero


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18864


      Rebecca Moore


      Chapter 13


      #11.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 23093 Canyon Hills Drive, Corona, CA


      MOVANT: REBECCA MOORE


      EH       


      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Improper Opposition: None


      Judge Houle’s self-calendaring procedures require that motions to continue the automatic stay which are set on shortened notice must be served on secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, it does not appear that either of the secured creditors, Mr. Cooper and California Meadows HOA, were served pursuant to Rule 7004. The Court also notes that the HOA is not identified on the first page of the motion or on section 1 of page 3. Debtor’s counsel to address these service deficiencies.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rebecca Moore Represented By Edward T Weber

      Movant(s):

      Rebecca Moore Represented By Edward T Weber

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Rebecca Moore


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18876


      Pablo Cornejo


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 31945 Daniel Way, Temecula, CA 92591


      MOVANT: PABLO CORNEJO


      EH       


      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      Debtor had three prior cases dismissed in the previous calendar year. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(I), the instant bankruptcy case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C), the Court requires "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut the presumption of bad faith. Here, Debtor has not provided any meaningful evidence regarding a change in circumstance, only saying that he does not "anticipate having any issues in this present case." Because this evidence fails to meet the heightened standard imposed by § 362(c)(3)(C), the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Pablo Cornejo Represented By Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Pablo Cornejo Represented By Daniel King

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Pablo Cornejo


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-19120


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13


      #13.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 27653 Bottle Brush Way Murrieta, CA 92562-2546


      MOVANT: HEINRICH FRANZ BRINKMANN


      EH       


      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Improper Opposition: None


      Judge Houle’s self-calendaring procedures require that motions to continue the automatic stay which are set on shortened notice must be served on secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, it does not appear that Green Ranch Community Association was served pursuant to Rule 7004. Additionally, the Court notes that while it appears the motion was served pursuant to Rule 7004 on the holder of the first deed of trust, that entity is not actually listed in the body of the motion.

      Instead, it appears that Debtor listed the loan servicer in the body of the motion, while not serving the loan servicer pursuant to Rule 7004. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Movant(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Stephen H Darrow


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17653


      Jessica Pena Sung


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH

      Docket 27


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/06/2019

      Opposition: None Service: Proper


      The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $418.21 Trustee Expenses: $23.55



      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jessica Pena Sung Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13767


      Jose Heriberto Alvarado


      Chapter 7


      #2.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 71

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING

      11/06/2019

      Opposition: None Service: Proper


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees:

      $2,616.50

      Trustee Expenses:

      $116.10

      Attorney Fees:

      $10,029.00

      Attorney Costs:

      $281.76

      Accountant Fees:

      $1,428.00

      Accountant Costs:

      $263.50


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Heriberto Alvarado Represented By

      Robert W Stewart Jr

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Jose Heriberto Alvarado


      Chapter 7

      Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

      Leonard M Shulman

      11:00 AM

      6:18-13662


      Macario Q. Jaime and Bertha E. Jaime


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH       

      Docket 60

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING

      11/06/2019

      Opposition: None Service: Proper


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees:

      $4,550.00

      Trustee Expenses:

      $213.07

      Attorney Fees:

      $7,241.00

      Attorney Costs:

      $614.00

      Accountant Fees:

      $2,562.00

      Accountant Costs:

      $392.90


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Macario Q. Jaime Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Macario Q. Jaime and Bertha E. Jaime


      Chapter 7

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Bertha E. Jaime Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

      11:00 AM

      6:18-10208


      Rolando Carlos Reyes and Florencia Aquino Reyes


      Chapter 7


      #4.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

      Docket 46

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING

      11/06/2019

      Opposition: None Service: Proper


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees:

      $4,250.00

      Trustee Expenses:

      $120.40

      Clerk of the Court Cost:

      $350.00

      Attorney Fees:

      $18,992.50

      Attorney Costs:

      $618.14


      As to the accounting fees, they appear excessive given that the task is essential to preparing state and federal tax return for the year. Accountant to address concern and may supplement its application.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rolando Carlos Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Rolando Carlos Reyes and Florencia Aquino Reyes


      Chapter 7

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Florencia Aquino Reyes Represented By Walter Scott

      Trustee(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

      Shulman Hodges & Bastian LLP Leonard M Shulman

      11:00 AM

      6:15-17611


      Jose Elenilson Ortiz and Veronica Ortiz


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Motion to Avoid Lien with Capital One Bank USA NA EH    

      Docket 28

      Tentative Ruling:


      TENTATIVE RULING


      11/06/19


      Thus, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, noting the lack of opposition.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Elenilson Ortiz Represented By Bridget Howze

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Veronica Ortiz Represented By Bridget Howze

      Movant(s):

      Jose Elenilson Ortiz Represented By Bridget Howze

      Veronica Ortiz Represented By Bridget Howze

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Jose Elenilson Ortiz and Veronica Ortiz


      Chapter 7

      Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:13-16964


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


      #6.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:13-ap-01171. Complaint by Charles Edward Schrader against Narinder Sangha . willful and malicious injury))


      From: 4/17/19, 5/22/19, 8/28/19 Also #7

      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

      Defendant(s):

      Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Donald Reid Charity J Manee

      Plaintiff(s):

      Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:13-16964


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


      #7.00 Motion for Sanctions Against Plaintiff Charles Edward Schrader for Bad Faith Litigation Conduct


      Also #6 EH       

      Docket 327

      Tentative Ruling:

      11/06/19

      BACKGROUND:


      On April 18, 2013, Narinder Sangha ("Debtor") filed for Chapter 7 voluntary petition (13-16964). On April 25, 2013, Charles Edward Schrader ("Plaintiff") filed an adversary case against the Debtor, seeking non-dischargeability of judgment debt.


      Plaintiff had previously been awarded a default judgment of $1,396,633.40 in a Superior Court ("State Court Complaint") on June 2, 2011. Based on the State Court complaint was filed on October 13, 2009. Plaintiff alleged that Debtor had made defamatory statements—Debtor called Plaintiff physical and emotionally abusive, during and after their sexual relationship ended, in a statement made to San Jose Fire Department, which was conducting a background check on Plaintiff for employment— about him with malice and the intent to harm his good name and reputation. Because Debtor caused him willful and malicious injury, pursuant to §523(a)(6), Plaintiff argues that the judgment debt should not be allegedly discharged.


      Debtor answered Plaintiff’s complaint by denying he made any defamatory statements concerning plaintiff with malice, intent, or both to injure Plaintiff’s reputation. Debtor claims that the State Court Compliant were not litigated because of the legal malfeasance of Debtor’s former counsel, Christopher A. Leuterio, who was unaware of any deadlines, hearings, or responses required from the Debtor. If it were not for Debtor’s former counsel, Debtor alleges the Superior Court in the State Court Complaint

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7

      would have evidence of Plaintiff committing domestic violence against the Debtor, including emotional abuse and harassing e-mails, text message, and phone calls.


      Prior to the filing of the adversary proceeding, Debtor was granted a restraining order ("RO") by the Superior Court after a finding of good cause on August 12, 2009, and it was to remain in effect until February 12, 2010. On May 28, 2010, Plaintiff appealed the RO, asserting that the lower court’s refusal of his request to submit more documents violated his due process. The appellate court ruled against Plaintiff, finding that no due process violation occurred, and the appellate court affirmed the RO.


      After the default judgment was given for the State Court Complaint, Debtor claims to have fired his previous counsel, filed suit against his prior counsel for legal malfeasance, hired a more competent counsel, and attempted to vacate the judgment on the State Court Complaint. However, the motion to vacate the judgment was denied.


      Now, as part of the adversary proceeding, Debtor files this motion because he alleges that Plaintiff engaged in improper and bad-faith litigation conduct with third- party witnesses to prevent compliance with lawful subpoena. In 2019, Debtor served lawful subpoenas on the City of San Jose and Associated International, the entities that Plaintiff alleges Debtor made defamatory statements to. Debtor contends that after serving the lawful subpoenas to the City of San Jose and Associated International, Plaintiff threatened the City with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit if it complied with said subpoena. (Dkt. No. 327, Ex. 3, Pg. 18).


      The Debtor alleges, due to this threat, the City of San Jose objected to the subpoena, and decided it will not release the documents asked for without an additional court order addressing Plaintiff’s assertion of his right to privacy. Id. at 27.


      Plaintiff responds by claiming that his assertion of his privacy rights to the city was perfectly legal: "[t]here is nothing unlawful about asserting one’s privacy interests, and [Debtor] provides no legal authority for the proposition that doing so constitutes ‘improper and bad faith litigation conduct’ so egregious as to justify [FRCP] 37[,] terminating sanctions." (Dkt. No. 329, Pg. 3). In the alternative, Plaintiff states that if asserting one’s privacy right is unlawful, then Plaintiff should pay for the cost of Debtor’s motion to compel, not to terminate the case. Id. at 6.


      DISCUSSION:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7


      In the motion for terminating sanctions, the Court must consider "(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

    2. the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).


In addressing the first two factors, Courts have noted that the public’s interest in prompt resolution of litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket always favor dismissal. SEC v. Wu, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 126695, *5 (N. D. Cal. 2016). Similar in this case, litigation between the two parties have been on-going since April 25, 2013. Countless motions, objections, and replies have been filed. The docket is at number 334. Much of the delay cannot be attributed to improper action by either party. Each party, for the most part, has followed the Courts orders and procedures.


The Court does not believe that there is a risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, the third factor. The Debtor would suffer prejudice if the Plaintiff’s action wrongfully impairs his ability to go to trial or threatens to interfere with the rightful decision of the case. Adrian Int’l Corp. v. Lewis & Co., 913 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1990). The Plaintiff’s action, to assert his privacy rights, did not prejudice the Debtor. The City of San Jose states that it would follow the subpoena if an additional court order, addressing Plaintiff’s right to privacy, is provided. Debtor had ample time to file the motion to compel. Nor does Plaintiff’s assertion of the right to privacy interfere with a rightful decision of the case. If a motion to compel is granted, City of San Jose will release the subpoenaed documents and the Court would make a decision based on multiple factors, including those documents.


The fourth factor clearly weighs against the sanction. Furthermore, the fifth factor need not be addressed because the factors weigh heavily in denying the motion. (United States use of Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d 600 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating, generally, a court must consider fewer alternative sanctions and discuss them before actually dismissing the case.)


Tentative Ruling


Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court’s tentative ruling is to DENY the

11:00 AM

CONT...

Motion


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

Defendant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Donald Reid Charity J Manee

Movant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Donald Reid Charity J Manee

Plaintiff(s):

Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-15301


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7


#8.00 CONT Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy under Rule 9019


From: 9/18/19, 10/16/19 EH       

Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND


On June 24, 2017, Jaspar & Brenda Stevens ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On October 10, 2017, Debtors received a discharge, and the case was closed the next day.


On July 24, 2019, UST filed a motion to reopen the case so that Trustee could investigate a proposed settlement of a lawsuit; the case was reopened the same day. On August 16, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise. The compromise relates to the settlement of the state court litigation initially commenced by Debtors against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. The material terms of the compromise are that Trustee shall execute a request for dismissal of the state court litigation in return for

$50,000.


On August 28, 2019, Debtors filed an opposition to the compromise motion. Debtors argue that the state court lawsuit was properly abandoned upon the conclusion of Debtors’ bankruptcy case, and that, as a result, the claims are not property of the estate

2:00 PM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

and cannot be compromised by Trustee. On September 10, 2019, Trustee filed a reply arguing that the state court litigation was not abandoned.


The relevant material facts are not in dispute. Debtors concede that the litigation was not disclosed on their schedules. Trustee concedes that the litigation was disclosed on the statement of financial affairs. The parties dispute revolves around the interpretation of the word "scheduled" in 11 U.S.C. § 554(c).


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 554(c) states: "Unless the court orders otherwise, any property scheduled under section 521(a)(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of this title." "Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under this section and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate." 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1) states


  1. The debtor shall

    1. file


      1. a list of creditors; and

      2. unless the court orders otherwise –

        1. a schedule of assets and liabilities;

        2. a schedule of current income and current expenditures


        3. a statement of the debtor’s financial affairs and, if section 342(b) applies, a certificate –

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens

          1. of an attorney whose name is indicated on the petition as the attorney for the debtor, or a bankruptcy petition preparer signing the petition under section 110(b)(1), indicating that such attorney or the bankruptcy petition preparer delivered to the debtor the notice required by section 342(b); or


          2. if not attorney is no indicated, and no bankruptcy petition preparer signed the petition, of the debtor that such notice was received and read by the debtor;


        4. copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor from any employer of the debtor;


        5. a statement of the amount of monthly net income, itemized to show how the amount is calculated; and


        6. a statement disclosing any reasonably anticipated increase in income or expenditures over the 12-month period following the date of the filing of the petition


          Chapter 7


          Debtors primarily rely upon In re Hill, 195 B.R. 147 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1996). Trustee

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


          Chapter 7

          implicitly concedes that In re Hill supports Debtors’ position, but Trustee argues that "In re Hill relied on an erroneous statutory interpretation, went against policy and authority in relieving debtors of their obligations and consequences, and was essentially disposed of on other grounds that section 554(c), and should therefore not be followed by this Court." [Dkt. No. 30, pg. 7, lines 22-24]. In re Hill concluded that:


          The language of § 521 itself supports a broader reading of "scheduled" in

          § 554(c), because the paragraph which follows paragraph § 521(1) makes a particular reference to "debtor’s schedule of assets and liabilities." The use of this specific reference strongly suggests that the drafts of the Code will say "schedule of assets and liabilities" when that narrow requirement is intended, and that a reference to § 521(1) is a reference to § 521(1) as a whole.


          Id. at 150; see also U.S. ex rel. Fortenberry v. Holloway Group, Inc., 515 B.R. 827 (W.D. Okla. 2014) ("In other words the Court finds that the ‘scheduled’ requirement in § 554(c) refers to all of the disclosures required in § 521(a)(1), including the debtor’s statement of financial affairs.").


          On the other hand, Trustee points to multiple cases from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel which held that "[m]entioning an asset in the statement of financial affairs is not the same as scheduling it for purposes of abandonment under § 554(c)." In re Pretscher-Johnson, 2017 WL 2779977 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2017); In re Kayne, 453 B.R. 372 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (same); see also In re Fossey, 119 B.R. 268 (D. Utah 1990) ("The case have held that the word ‘scheduled’ in § 554(c) refers to property listed in the debtor’s Schedule of Assets and Liabilities."). While Debtor has provided a recent Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case which seems to backtrack from the Panel’s earlier position to a degree, as noted by Trustee, the reasoning in In re Tadayon, 2019 WL 1923044 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019) is less than clear, bordering on bizarre.


          Noting that the majority of the caselaw on this issue favors the position of the Trustee, the Court is inclined to conclude that the listing of the pending lawsuit in the statement of financial affairs is inadequate to trigger a technical abandonment

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


          Chapter 7

          of that asset pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). While the Court acknowledges that the drafting of § 554(c) is somewhat ambiguous given that the statute could refer to § 521(a)(1)(B)(i), instead of § 521(a)(1) generally, the use of the word "scheduled" must be interpreted in relation to the preparation of "schedules." Divorcing the verb "scheduled" from the noun "schedules" does not appear to be a reasonable approach to statutory interpretation, especially considering that in other sections, the Code includes the phrase "neither listed nor scheduled under section 521(a)(1)." 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).


          Turning to the compromise motion, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


          On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


          The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.


          Here, the evidence before the Court is insufficient to assess the "fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" of the compromise. Specifically, the Court notes that the compromise motion does not include any meaningful detail regarding the nature of the state court litigation to be compromise, nor does the motion contain any description of the amount of damages sought in state court. Because of this absence of information, the Court is wholly unable to assess the reasonableness of the $50,000 to be received by the bankruptcy estate.

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


          Chapter 7

          TENTATIVE RULING



          The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence as to the

          A&C Properties elements.


          APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Jasper Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

          Joint Debtor(s):

          Brenda Louise Murray Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

          Movant(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

          Trustee(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

          2:00 PM

          6:19-10279


          Thomas Mount


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:19-01050 Baker et al v. Mount


          #9.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01050. Complaint by Jonathan Baker, Baker Entertainment Group against Thomas Mount. Unlawful and Fraudulent Business Practice Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. et seq. Nature of Suit: (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)),(65 (Dischargeability - other)) (Cohen, Baruch)


          From: 5/8/19, 6/5/19 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Thomas Mount Represented By Christopher Hewitt

          Defendant(s):

          Thomas Mount Represented By Donald Reid

          Plaintiff(s):

          Jonathan Baker Represented By Baruch C Cohen

          Baker Entertainment Group Represented By Baruch C Cohen

          2:00 PM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Thomas Mount


          Chapter 7

          Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

          2:00 PM

          6:17-10724


          Bausman and Company Incorporated


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:19-01122 Whitmore v. Labor Commissioner of the State of California


          #10.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01122. Complaint by Robert S. Whitmore against Labor Commissioner of the State of California. (Charge To Estate

          $350.00). Complaint to Avoid Preferential Transfer Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547 (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Djang, Caroline)


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Bausman and Company Incorporated Represented By

          William A Smelko

          Defendant(s):

          Labor Commissioner of the State of Represented By

          Melvin Yee

          Plaintiff(s):

          Robert S. Whitmore Represented By Caroline Djang

          Trustee(s):

          Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By

          Best Best & Krieger Caroline Djang

          2:00 PM

          6:16-15813


          John E. Tackett


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:18-01138 Speier v. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC et al


          #11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01138. Complaint by Steven M Speier against Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC, Conestoga International Holdings, LLC, Conestoga Trust, Provident Trust Group, LLC, De Leon & Washburh, P.C., Thomas Washburn, Hector De Leon, Jeff Converse, Michael Woods, Michael McDermott. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Rescission and Restitution for Fraud; (3) Money Had and Received; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Fraud; (6) Negligent Representation; (7) Negligence; (8) Rescission and Restitution for Sale of Unqualified Securities [Cal. Corp. §25503]; (9) Damages for Sale of Unqualified Securities [Cal. Corp. §25503];

          (10) Rescission: Securities: Misrepresentation [Cal. Corp. §25501]; (11) Damages: Securities: Misrepresentation [Cal. Corp. §25501]; (12) Contempt for Willful Violation of Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105; and (13) Elder Financial Abuse [Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15600 et seq.] Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Eastmond, Thomas)


          From: 8/29/18, 11/28/18, 1/9/19, 4/10/19 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          John E. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

          Defendant(s):

          Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC Represented By

          Charles Miller Conestoga International Holdings, Represented By

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          John E. Tackett


          Charles Miller


          Chapter 7

          Conestoga Trust Represented By Charles Miller

          Provident Trust Group, LLC Represented By Marshall J Hogan

          De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

          Thomas Washburn Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

          Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

          Jeff Converse Pro Se

          Michael Woods Pro Se

          Michael McDermott Pro Se

          Joint Debtor(s):

          Ellen O. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

          Plaintiff(s):

          Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

          Trustee(s):

          Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

          Thomas J Eastmond

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:18-01114 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. The Blue Law Group, Inc, a


          #12.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01114. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against The Blue Law Group, Inc, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


          From: 7/10/18, 2/27/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          The Blue Law Group, Inc, a Represented By Michael K Blue

          Plaintiff(s):

          David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


          Chapter 11

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:16-01225 Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC v. Allied Injury Management,


          #13.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by Cambridge Medical Funding Group II, LLC against Allied Injury Management, Inc., John C. Larson. 02 - Other e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy HOLDING DATE


          From: 11/1/16, 12/6/16, 1/31/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 10/3/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19,

          6/12/19, 8/28/19


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          John C. Larson Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          Cambridge Medical Funding Group Represented By

          Kenneth Hennesay

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


          Chapter 11

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:16-01279 Allied Injury Management, Inc. v. One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group


          #14.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:16-ap-01279. Complaint by Allied Injury Management, Inc. against One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group & Therapy, Inc., One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Group, Inc., Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Group, Inc.. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; and (3) Unjust Enrichment Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


          From: 1/24/17, 3/7/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19,

          8/28/19


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

          Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

          One Stop Multi-Specialty Medical Represented By

          Maria K Pum Maria C Armenta

          Nor Cal Pain Management Medical Represented By

          Maria K Pum

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Maria C Armenta


          Chapter 11

          Plaintiff(s):

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:18-01109 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Titanium Resource Company,


          #15.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350.00). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 - preference,13 Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


          From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          Titanium Resource Company, Inc., a Represented By

          Alan W Forsley

          Plaintiff(s):

          David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


          Chapter 11

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:18-01110 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Larson, D.C., an individual


          #16.00 CONT Status Conference Re: Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against John Larson, D.C., an individual. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers, Avoidance of Improper Distributions, and Unjust Enrichment and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: 12 - Recovery of money/property - 547 preference, 13- Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer


          From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          John Larson, D.C., an individual Represented By

          Alan W Forsley

          Plaintiff(s):

          David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


          Chapter 11

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


          #17.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01111. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers, Recovery of Transferred Property or Value Thereof, Preservation of Avoided Transfers and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Werth, Steven)


          From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19


          Also #18 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Trustee(s):


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Mark S Horoupian


          Chapter 11

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:18-01111 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. American Express Company, a


          #18.00 CONT Status Conference RE: 3rd Party Complaint [4] Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint, and Third-Party Claim Against John

          C. Larson, Third-Party Complaint by American Express Company, a New York Corporation dba American Express, American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., a New York corporation dba American Express against John C. Larson


          From: 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19


          Also #17 EH   

          Docket 4

          *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER DISMISSING ADVERSARY PROCEEDING FILED 9/30/19

          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -

          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          American Express Company, a New Pro Se American Express Travel Related Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth Mark S Horoupian

          2:00 PM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11

          Adv#: 6:18-01113 David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Netreva, Inc., a California


          #19.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01113. Complaint by David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Trustee against Netreva, Inc., a California corporation. (Charge To Estate). Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Preferential Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b), 550 and 551 and Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)) (Werth, Steven)


          From: 7/10/18, 8/21/18, 10/30/18, 1/15/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19


          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Defendant(s):

          Netreva, Inc., a California Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

          Plaintiff(s):

          David M. Goodrich, Chapter 11 Represented By Steven Werth

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Victor A Sahn Steven Werth


          Chapter 11

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11


          #20.00 CONT First Omnibus Objection of Debtor-In-Possession Allied Injury Management,

          Inc. Seeking Disallowance of Certain Proofs of Claim

          (Holding Date)


          From: 11/8/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 3/7/17,4/4/17, 4/25/17, 6/27/17, 7/11/17, 9/12/17, 11/14/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18, 11/27/18, 2/26/19,

          4/10/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19


          Also #21 EH   

          Docket 83


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Movant(s):

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

          2:00 PM

          6:16-14273


          Allied Injury Management, Inc.


          Chapter 11


          #21.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


          From: 6/7/16, 8/30/16, 9/14/16, 10/20/16, 10/25/16, 12/6/16, 1/10/17, 2/28/17, 3/28/17, 5/30/17, 8/29/17, 11/28/17, 1/30/18, 4/10/18, 4/24/18, 6/26/18, 9/25/18,

          11/27/18, 2/26/19, 4/10/19, 6/12/19, 8/28/19


          Also #20 EH   

          Docket 7


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Allied Injury Management, Inc. Represented By Alan W Forsley

          Trustee(s):

          David M Goodrich (TR) Represented By Mark S Horoupian Jason Balitzer Victor A Sahn Steven Werth

          2:00 PM

          6:15-14230


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:18-01213 Pringle v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chas


          #22.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01213. Complaint by John Pringle against JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association dba Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, National Association. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

          Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) From: 1/9/19, 3/13/19, 6/5/19, 9/4/19

          EH   


          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Home Security Stores, Inc. Represented By Winfield S Payne III

          Defendant(s):

          JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

          Christopher O Rivas

          Chase Bank USA, National Represented By Christopher O Rivas

          Plaintiff(s):

          John Pringle Represented By

          Robert P Goe

          Trustee(s):

          John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Home Security Stores, Inc.


          Chapter 7

          2:00 PM

          6:13-27611


          Douglas Jay Roger


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


          #23.00 Motion by Revere Financial Corporation, as Liquidating Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Douglas J. Roger, to Enforce Settlement


          Also #24 EH       

          Docket 149


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

          Defendant(s):

          Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

          Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

          Movant(s):

          Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr Sue-Ann L Tran

          Plaintiff(s):

          Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr Sue-Ann L Tran

          2:00 PM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Douglas Jay Roger


          Chapter 7

          Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

          Franklin R Fraley Jr

          2:00 PM

          6:13-27611


          Douglas Jay Roger


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:16-01199 Revere Financial Corporation v. Bank of Southern California, N.A.


          #24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [40] Amended Complaint (Second) by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01199.

          Complaint by Revere Financial Corporation against Bank of Southern California, N.A.. (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


          From: 8/28/19, 10/9/19 Also #23

          EH   


          Docket 40


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

          Defendant(s):

          Bank of Southern California, N.A. Represented By

          Kathryn M.S. Catherwood

          Plaintiff(s):

          Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr Sue-Ann L Tran

          2:00 PM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Douglas Jay Roger


          Chapter 7

          Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

          Franklin R Fraley Jr

          2:00 PM

          6:13-29922


          Nancy Ann Howell


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


          #25.00 CONT Motion For Summary Judgment

          (Holding Date)


          From: 12/2/15, 2/17/16, 3/2/16, 3/16/16, 4/27/16, 9/21/16, 12/14/16, 6/21/17, 1/24/18, 1/31/18, 5/30/18, 10/10/18, 2/27/19, 8/28/19


          Also #26 EH   

          Docket 62


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

          Defendant(s):

          Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

          Movant(s):

          Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

          Andrew S Bisom

          Plaintiff(s):

          Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

          Andrew S Bisom

          Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

          2:00 PM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Nancy Ann Howell


          Chapter 7

          Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

          2:00 PM

          6:13-29922


          Nancy Ann Howell


          Chapter 7

          Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


          #26.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:14-ap-01070. Complaint by Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom, Eisenberg Law Firm, APC against Nancy Ann Howell. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


          From: 5/14/14, 7/2/14, 12/10/14, 3/18/15, 4/22/15, 5/20/15, 7/22/15, 10/28/15, 12/2/15, 2/17/16, 3/2/16, 3/16/16, 4/27/16, 9/21/16, 12/14/16, 6/21/17, 1/24/18,

          1/31/18, 5/30/18, 10/10/18, 2/27/19, 8/28/19


          Also #25 EH   

          Docket 1


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

          Defendant(s):

          Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

          Plaintiff(s):

          Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

          Andrew S Bisom

          Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

          Trustee(s):

          Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Nancy Ann Howell


          Chapter 7

          11:00 AM

          6:16-19018


          Ingeborg Margarete Preisendanz


          Chapter 13


          #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23305 Spring Meadow Drive, Murrieta, California 92562


          MOVANT: REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC.


          From: 8/20/19, 9/19/19 EH   

          Docket 62


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Ingeborg Margarete Preisendanz Represented By

          Danny K Agai

          Movant(s):

          Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

          Sean C Ferry

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:17-16962


          Vanessa Moore-Moreland


          Chapter 13


          #2.00 Motion to vacate dismissal EH       

          Docket 64


          Tentative Ruling:

          - NONE LISTED -


          Debtor(s):


          Party Information

          Vanessa Moore-Moreland Represented By Nancy Korompis

          Movant(s):

          Vanessa Moore-Moreland Represented By Nancy Korompis Nancy Korompis

          Trustee(s):

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:18-20002


          Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


          Chapter 13


          #3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23631 Rhea Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92557


          MOVANT: NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC DBA MR. COOPER AS SERVICING AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY


          From: 8/20/19, 10/1/19, 10/31/19 EH   

          Docket 42

          Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

          8/20/2019


          Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

          Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

          Party Information

          Debtor(s):

          Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes Represented By John F Brady

          Movant(s):

          Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Nancy L Lee Gilbert R Yabes

          11:00 AM

          CONT...

          Trustee(s):


          Tanyua Alicia Gates-Holmes


          Chapter 13

          Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

          11:00 AM

          6:19-13146


          Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


          Chapter 13


          #4.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 5 by Claimant Specialized Loan Servicing LLC


          From: 10/3/19 Also #5 & #6 EH       

          Docket 44

          Tentative Ruling:

          10/3/2019

          BACKGROUND:

          On April 15, 2019, Mark & Elizabeth Swartz ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On June 21, 2019, The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as successor Indenture trustee to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association for CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-F ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a secured claim in the amount of $157,959.06 ("Claim 5").

          On July 10, 2019, Debtors filed an objection to Claim 5. Debtors argued that the information filed in support of Claim 5 is inadequate pursuant to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and that, as a result, Creditor has failed to meet its burden of proof. At the hearing of August 22, 2019, the Court noted that there appeared to be an error on the proof of service which resulted in Creditor’s notice address being misstated. For that reason, the Court continued the matter for proper service.

          11:00 AM

          CONT...

          Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

          Chapter 13

          On August 30, 2019, Debtors filed a renewed objection to Claim 5. The Court notes that notice and service are now proper.

          APPLICABLE LAW:

          Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.

          When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the

          11:00 AM

          CONT...

          Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz

          Chapter 13

          claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.

          ANALYSIS:


          11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) (2005) states:


  2. Except as provided in subsections (e)(2), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this section, if such objection to a claim is made, the court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of such claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that—


    1. such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured;


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(2) identifies certain required information that a claimant must attach to a proof of claim in order for the claim to be afforded prima facie validity. In particular, the Court notes that Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) and (C) provide requirements related to the itemization of non-principal amounts and escrow amounts, respectively.


      The Court finds Debtors’ assertion that the supporting information is inadequate to be well-founded. The mortgage proof of claim attachment includes the following information. Part 2 identifies a principal balance of $98,982.98, interest due of

      $55,486.25, and fees and costs of $3,489.83. Part 3 identifies a pre-petition arrears of

      $87,692.60, of which $84,202.77 was principal and $3,489.83 was the aforementioned costs. And Part 4 asserts that the month payment includes $607.39 for principal and interest and $549.90 for escrow.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


      Chapter 13


      The two figures which do not appear to be justified in the supporting documentation are the $55,486.25 in interest and the $549.90 monthly payment for escrow. The Court notes that the loan payment history spreadsheet provided by Creditor does not contain any itemization for interest or escrow, and, furthermore, the entire column relating to accrued interest balance and accrued escrow balance is zeroed out.


      Because Creditor has failed to separate principal, interest, and escrow, as directed by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(2), and, noting that Debtors have declared that there is no escrow account relating to the second mortgage, the Court is unable to determine the validity or amount of the prepetition default identified in column G of the loan payment history. The Court has also not been provided with any itemization or calculation of the interest amount, alleged to be $55,486.25.


      As a result, the Court is inclined to reduce Claim 5 to $102,472.81, representing the principal balance and fees and costs due in part 2 of the loan payment history, with a prepetition arrearage amount of $0.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


      Chapter 13

      Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

      Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman Fritz J Firman

      PYOD LLC Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-13146


      Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 Order to show cause why Claimant, The Bank of New York Mellon, as Successor Indenture Trustee, and Servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Claim 5 should not be reduced


      Also #4 & #6 EH   

      Docket 52

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12/19/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-13146


      Mark G Swartz and Elizabeth M Swartz


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 7/11/19, 8/22/19, 10/3/19

      Also #4 & #5 EH    

      Docket 15

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12/19/19 AT 11:00 A.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mark G Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Elizabeth M Swartz Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-13444


      Humberto Picciotti


      Chapter 13


      #7.00 Motion to Avoid Junior Lien with Lake Hills Maintenance Corp EH       

      Docket 42

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/14/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Humberto Picciotti Represented By

      D Justin Harelik

      Movant(s):

      Humberto Picciotti Represented By

      D Justin Harelik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18726


      Frank E Sharaby


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 Motion to Avoid Junior Lien On Principal Residence with Franklin Credit Management


      EH       


      Docket 18


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Frank E Sharaby Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Frank E Sharaby Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16369


      Jorge Luis Ibarra Carrillo


      Chapter 13


      #9.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/17/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jorge Luis Ibarra Carrillo Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16560


      Orlando Soriano and Veronica Vera-Soriano


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/31/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Orlando Soriano Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Veronica Vera-Soriano Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16658


      Stephanie McCravey Cooper


      Chapter 13


      #11.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/31/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Stephanie McCravey Cooper Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16963


      Dan Parr and Ida Parr


      Chapter 13


      #12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/31/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Dan Parr Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ida Parr Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16977


      Mark E Harvey


      Chapter 13


      #13.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/31/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Mark E Harvey Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17037


      Sonia Salguero


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Sonia Salguero Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17038


      Jessica Marie Barron-Lopez


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jessica Marie Barron-Lopez Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17042


      Willie J Franklin


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/9/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Willie J Franklin Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17047


      Christopher Dennis


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 8/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Christopher Dennis Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17080


      Cesar Orozco


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Cesar Orozco Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17082


      Laura Marie Beachamp


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Laura Marie Beachamp Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17091


      Edward A Jandt and Shelley A Jandt


      Chapter 13


      #20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Edward A Jandt Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Shelley A Jandt Represented By Christopher Hewitt

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17096


      Joseph F Morgano and Elizabeth A Morgano


      Chapter 13


      #21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Joseph F Morgano Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Elizabeth A Morgano Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17099


      Malalage Malalasekera


      Chapter 7


      #22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 9/23/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Malalage Malalasekera Represented By Kevin Tang

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17112


      Jeff Book


      Chapter 13


      #23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jeff Book Represented By

      Eric C Morris

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17124


      Pierre Daniel Petit Frere and Theresa M Lopez Petit Frere


      Chapter 13


      #24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Pierre Daniel Petit Frere Represented By Robert L Firth

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Theresa M Lopez Petit Frere Represented By Robert L Firth

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17148


      Guillermo Manzo and Cynthia Manzo


      Chapter 13


      #25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Guillermo Manzo Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Cynthia Manzo Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17149


      Elmy Martinez


      Chapter 13


      #26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Elmy Martinez Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17200


      Michelle Crain


      Chapter 13


      #27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michelle Crain Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17211


      Leroy Elanders Bray, III


      Chapter 13


      #28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/3/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Leroy Elanders Bray III Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17249


      Mark Allen Beatty


      Chapter 13


      #29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Mark Allen Beatty Represented By Jeffrey D Larkin

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17273


      Mario Herrera


      Chapter 13


      #30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/18/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mario Herrera Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17274


      Sherry L. Stokes


      Chapter 13


      #31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Sherry L. Stokes Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17275


      Lisa Marie Hawkins


      Chapter 13


      #32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Lisa Marie Hawkins Represented By Jeffrey N Wishman

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17283


      Cory LeRoi Page and Gabriella Pre Page


      Chapter 13


      #33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Cory LeRoi Page Represented By Kristin R Lamar

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Gabriella Pre Page Represented By Kristin R Lamar

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17310


      Kenneth James Trujillo, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Kenneth James Trujillo Jr. Represented By Steven A Alpert

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17316


      Steven Scott De Keyrel and Deena Marie Eshom De Keyrel


      Chapter 13


      #35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Steven Scott De Keyrel Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Deena Marie Eshom De Keyrel Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17329


      Mark R Gehrig


      Chapter 13


      #36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Mark R Gehrig Represented By Julie J Villalobos

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17343


      Dane Harmon


      Chapter 13


      #37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Dane Harmon Represented By Timothy S Huyck

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17360


      Rosie Montoya Alonzo


      Chapter 13


      #38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Rosie Montoya Alonzo Represented By

      H Christopher Coburn

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17376


      Delbert S. May


      Chapter 13


      #39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Delbert S. May Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17390


      Shawn Michael DeLuca and Julie Lynn DeLuca


      Chapter 13


      #40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Shawn Michael DeLuca Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Julie Lynn DeLuca Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17413


      Alejandro Rubio Williams


      Chapter 13


      #41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Alejandro Rubio Williams Represented By Robert W Ripley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17414


      Daniel Enrique Hernandez


      Chapter 7


      #42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CHAPTER 7 ON 9/23/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Daniel Enrique Hernandez Represented By Kevin T Simon

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17416


      Gerald Curtis Collins and Valerie Cecelia Collins


      Chapter 13


      #43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Gerald Curtis Collins Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Valerie Cecelia Collins Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16068


      John B Jensen


      Chapter 13


      #44.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/3/19, 10/31/19

      EH    


      Docket 0


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John B Jensen Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-17060


      Chris Alvarado Espinoza


      Chapter 13


      #45.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/3/19, 10/17/19

      EH       


      Docket 73


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Chris Alvarado Espinoza Represented By Gary S Saunders

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-19037


      Justin Sloan Harvey


      Chapter 13


      #46.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19

      EH   


      Docket 110


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Justin Sloan Harvey Represented By Jenny L Doling Summer M Shaw

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:15-20387


      Marion Schmidt


      Chapter 13


      #47.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 64

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/5/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Marion Schmidt Represented By Daniel C Sever

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-13030


      Richard Hill Lindsay and Laura Lee Lindsay


      Chapter 13


      #48.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Tax Returns From: 8/19/19

      Also #49 EH   

      Docket 128


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Hill Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Laura Lee Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-13030


      Richard Hill Lindsay and Laura Lee Lindsay


      Chapter 13


      #49.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re delinquency From: 10/31/19

      Also #48 EH       

      Docket 139


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Richard Hill Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Laura Lee Lindsay Represented By Emilia N McAfee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-16946


      Elliott Howard Blue, Jr and Yvette Blue


      Chapter 13


      #50.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19, 10/31/19

      EH   


      Docket 104


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Elliott Howard Blue Jr Represented By Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Yvette Blue Represented By

      Michael E Clark Barry E Borowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:16-18990


      John D Castro, Jr and Jennifer Manda Castro


      Chapter 13


      #51.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 100


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John D Castro Jr Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Jennifer Manda Castro Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-11167


      Victor Thomas Lawton


      Chapter 13


      #52.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 65

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/5/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-15343


      Jose Gabriel Sahagun, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #53.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19

      EH    


      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Gabriel Sahagun Jr. Represented By Richard G Heston

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-17942


      Viorel Bucur


      Chapter 13


      #54.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 93


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Viorel Bucur Represented By

      Michael Jay Berger

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-20121


      Agustin Napolion Joya and Dora Maria Joya


      Chapter 13


      #55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19

      EH   


      Docket 64


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Agustin Napolion Joya Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dora Maria Joya Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:17-20652


      Marian Amelia Pagano


      Chapter 13


      #56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 47


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Marian Amelia Pagano Represented By David Lozano

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-11416


      Darlene J. Wadler


      Chapter 13


      #57.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 43


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Darlene J. Wadler Represented By Michael Jay Berger

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-13566


      Marco Tulio Magana and Gloria Louisa Magana


      Chapter 13


      #58.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 49


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Marco Tulio Magana Represented By Daniel King

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Gloria Louisa Magana Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-13714


      Jose Martinez and Aurora Martinez


      Chapter 13


      #59.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 44


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Martinez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Aurora Martinez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-18415


      Donna Denise Upton


      Chapter 13


      #60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 39

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/9/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Donna Denise Upton Represented By Seema N Sood

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-18484


      Denise Awages Bracken


      Chapter 13


      #61.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 24


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Denise Awages Bracken Represented By

      Rabin J Pournazarian

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-19044


      Kimberly Ida McGee Hager


      Chapter 13


      #62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

      Docket 47


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Kimberly Ida McGee Hager Represented By Chris A Mullen

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:18-20232


      Diana Marie Perrone


      Chapter 13


      #63.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 32


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Diana Marie Perrone Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-10071


      John M. Betham and Dana M. Betham


      Chapter 13


      #64.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19

      EH   


      Docket 26


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      John M. Betham Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Dana M. Betham Represented By Christopher J Langley

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-10531


      Kimberly A Hardcastle


      Chapter 13


      #65.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19

      EH   


      Docket 33


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Kimberly A Hardcastle Represented By Jenny L Doling

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-11103


      Golda Y Williams


      Chapter 13


      #66.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

      EH   


      Docket 25


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Golda Y Williams Represented By Daniel King

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:01 AM

      6:19-14425


      La Quetta Delaine Bush Simmons


      Chapter 13


      #67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH       

      Docket 32


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      La Quetta Delaine Bush Simmons Represented By

      Neil R Hedtke

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-11010


      Gary F Pico and Mercedes P. Pico


      Chapter 13


      #1.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 39119 Crown Ranch Road, Temecula, California 92591


      MOVANT: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC


      From: 9/17/19, 10/15/19 EH   

      Docket 41


      Tentative Ruling:

      9/17/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Debtors


      Parties to apprise the court of the status of adequate protection discussions.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Gary F Pico Represented By

      Gregory Ashcraft

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Mercedes P. Pico Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

      Movant(s):

      Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC by Represented By

      Mark S Krause

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Gary F Pico and Mercedes P. Pico


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-14469


      Mario Timothy Velasquez and Susan Lorraine Velasquez


      Chapter 13


      #2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 109 West Rancho Road, Corona, California 92882


      MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA NA


      EH       


      Docket 45

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor


      Parties to discuss amount of arrears. Furthermore, parties to apprise the court on adequate protection discussions, if any.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mario Timothy Velasquez Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Susan Lorraine Velasquez Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Represented By Kelsey X Luu

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Mario Timothy Velasquez and Susan Lorraine Velasquez

      Gilbert R Yabes


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-15772


      Annette Leshon Rudd


      Chapter 13


      #3.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15399 Alosta Ln., Moreno Valley, CA 92555-2909


      MOVANT: WILMINGTON TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      From: 10/15/19 EH   

      Docket 97


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/15/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3 and 12.

      DENY alternative request under ¶ 13 as moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Annette Leshon Rudd Represented By John F Brady

      Movant(s):

      Wilmington Trust, National Represented By Sumit Bode Robert P Zahradka Darlene C Vigil

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Annette Leshon Rudd


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-14868


      Michael J Soriano


      Chapter 13


      #4.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 13700 Daimler Street, Moreno Valley, CA 92553


      MOVANT: ARVEST CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY


      From: 10/15/19 EH   

      Docket 48

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 10/25/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      10/15/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

      Parties to apprise the Court of the status of adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Michael J Soriano Represented By Paul Y Lee

      Movant(s):

      Arvest Central Mortgage Company, Represented By

      Nichole Glowin

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-17079


      Ronald A Carter


      Chapter 13


      #5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 24 McNish Rd, Southern Pines, NC 28387


      MOVANT: US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      EH       


      Docket 45

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from §1301 Co-debtor stay. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under ¶13 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Ronald A Carter Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Movant(s):

      U.S. Bank Trust National Represented By Christina J Khil

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Ronald A Carter


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:18-18846


      Jose L. Ferrer and Maria Ferrer


      Chapter 13


      #6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 25915 Jumano Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92551


      MOVANT: CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC


      EH       


      Docket 31

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT requests under paragraphs 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under paragraph 13 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose L. Ferrer Represented By

      Antonio John Ibarra

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Ferrer Represented By

      Antonio John Ibarra

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Jose L. Ferrer and Maria Ferrer


      Chapter 13

      Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Represented By Christina J Khil

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-11963


      Pamela M Bradford


      Chapter 13


      #7.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 5744 Alexandria Avenue, Corona, CA 92880-7253


      MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST


      From: 10/15/19 EH   

      Docket 49


      Tentative Ruling:

      10/15/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for Movant to provide a supplemental opposition or update of the status of arrears, and for Movant to file an opposition if desired. The Court notes that Movant’s assertion that"[t]his is no less than the 6th [b] ankruptcy case which has been filed by the Debtor, all Chapter 13 cases filed in this [d] istrict and subsequently dismissed" is incorrect. Between August 26, 2011, and June 23, 2017, Debtor was in a successful Chapter 13 case and received a discharge. To the extent that the assignor of the deed of trust did not receive monthly payments directly from Debtor, that matter could have been addressed during the pendency of that case. Additionally, the Court notes that the arrearage figures provided in the motion are inherently contradictory. The motion asserts that Debtor has missed two monthly payments post-confirmation, resulting in a delinquency in the amount of $3,468.80.

      Section 12(h) of the real property declaration, however, indicates that, in the three months post-confirmation, Debtor has made one full payment and two partial payments, resulting in a deficiency of $1,479.28 (less than one monthly payment).


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Debtor(s):


      Pamela M Bradford


      Party Information


      Chapter 13

      Pamela M Bradford Represented By

      James D. Hornbuckle

      Movant(s):

      U.S. BANK, NA AS LEGAL TITLE Represented By

      Diane Weifenbach

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-12079


      Nora Munoz


      Chapter 13


      #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Kia Sorento, VIN 5XYPG4A3XJG347728


      MOVANT: KIA MOTORS FINANCE


      EH       


      Docket 29

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      Debtor had previous bankruptcy case dismissed on March 1, 2019. Therefore, pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C §362(c)(3), the automatic stay in this case, absent order of the Court, was to expire on April 13, 2019. While, Debtors did file a motion to continue the automatic stay, that motion was ultimately denied by the Court. Therefore, the automatic stay expired on April 13, 2019, and the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as Moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Nora Munoz Represented By

      William Radcliffe

      Movant(s):

      Kia Motors Finance Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Nora Munoz


      Jennifer H Wang


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-16988


      Jaime Ricardo Lopez Perez and Carmen Evelyn Gomez


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Honda Civic CI, Vin 2HGFB6E58EH700560


      MOVANT: SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


      EH       


      Docket 15

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jaime Ricardo Lopez Perez Represented By James G. Beirne

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Carmen Evelyn Gomez Represented By James G. Beirne

      Movant(s):

      SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Jaime Ricardo Lopez Perez and Carmen Evelyn Gomez

      Paul V Reza


      Chapter 7

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17099


      Malalage Malalasekera


      Chapter 7


      #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F3 0HA1 35888


      MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


      EH       


      Docket 34

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/19


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under paragraph 11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Malalage Malalasekera Represented By Kevin Tang

      Movant(s):

      HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Malalage Malalasekera


      Chapter 7

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17492


      Erica K Reyes and Deirdre R Reyes


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Hyundai Sonata, VIN: 5NPE24AF8JH598675


      MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


      EH    


      Docket 16

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/2019


      Service is Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Erica K Reyes Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Deirdre R Reyes Represented By

      M. Wayne Tucker

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Erica K Reyes and Deirdre R Reyes


      Chapter 7

      Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17675


      Ronnie Lee Minnifield


      Chapter 7


      #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 127 North 12th Avenue, Upland, California 91786 with Exhibits filed by Creditor U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee for CVI CGS Mortgage Loan Trust I


      MOVANT: US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


      EH       


      Docket 15

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/19

      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      Debtor had previous bankruptcy case dismissed on October 10, 2019. Therefore, pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C §362(c)(3), the automatic stay in this case, absent order of the Court, will expire on November 9, 2019. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as Moot.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Ronnie Lee Minnifield Represented By Neil R Hedtke

      Movant(s):

      U.S. Bank Trust National Represented By Robert P Zahradka

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Ronnie Lee Minnifield


      Chapter 7

      Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-17770


      Jose Miguel Fernandez Bonilla and Norma Alicia Orellana


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 NISSAN MAXIMA, VIN # 1N4AA5AP1DC805929


      MOVANT: NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION


      EH       


      Docket 12

      Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

      11/12/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶11 as moot.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jose Miguel Fernandez Bonilla Represented By George P Hobson Jr

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Norma Alicia Orellana de Fernandez Represented By

      George P Hobson Jr

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Jose Miguel Fernandez Bonilla and Norma Alicia Orellana


      Chapter 7

      NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By

      Michael D Vanlochem

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-19019


      Denise Valencia


      Chapter 13


      #14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 14212 Cherry Creek Circle, Eastvale, CA


      MOVANT: YA LIU


      EH   


      Docket 10

      *** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/30/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Denise Valencia Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      YA LIU Represented By

      Helen G Long

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-19063


      Paul Edward Young, Jr.


      Chapter 13


      #15.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property located at 29075 Boulder Crest Way, Menifee, CA 92584


      MOVANT: PAUL EDWARD YOUNG, JR


      EH       


      Docket 10

      Tentative Ruling:

      TENTATIVE RULING:


      11/12/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      The Court has reviewed the motion: notice acceptable and no opposition has been filed. Appearing that Debtor has provided sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(ii) that the case was not filed in good faith, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, CONTINUING the stay as to all creditors.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Paul Edward Young Jr. Represented By Seema N Sood

      Movant(s):

      Paul Edward Young Jr. Represented By Seema N Sood

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Paul Edward Young, Jr.


      Seema N Sood Seema N Sood Seema N Sood Seema N Sood Seema N Sood


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-19251


      Adam Brian Britt and Kenya Lashawn Britt


      Chapter 13


      #16.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 3046 Statice Court, Hemet, CA 92545


      MOVANT: ADAM AND KENYA BRITT


      EH       


      Docket 10

      Tentative Ruling:

      TENTATIVE RULING:


      11/12/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      Debtors failed to explain why their son’s ailment will not be a continuing problem for their plan. Appearing that Debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(ii) that the case was not filed in good faith, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Adam Brian Britt Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kenya Lashawn Britt Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Adam Brian Britt and Kenya Lashawn Britt


      Chapter 13

      Adam Brian Britt Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Kenya Lashawn Britt Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-19359


      Jesus Antonio Palomares and Claudia Heredia Palomares


      Chapter 13


      #17.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate re 8490 Bellmore St. Riverside CA 92509


      MOVANT: JESUS ANTONIO PALOMARES


      EH   


      Docket 8

      Tentative Ruling:

      TENTATIVE RULING:


      11/12/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      Debtors claim that their last case was dismissed because they failed to check certain boxes. In the prior case, Debtors represented themselves. Debtors have decided to also represent themselves in this proceeding. Furthermore, Debtors have not stated any method or manner that will ensure the court such mistakes will not continue to happen. Thus, it appears that Debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(D)(i) that the case was not filed in good faith. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Jesus Antonio Palomares Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Claudia Heredia Palomares Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Jesus Antonio Palomares and Claudia Heredia Palomares


      Chapter 13

      Jesus Antonio Palomares Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-19422


      Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 32589 Winterberry Lane, Lake Elsinore, CA and as to all creditors.


      MOVANT: EUGENIO GIUSEPPE MANNELLA


      EH   


      Docket 7

      Tentative Ruling:

      TENTATIVE RULING:


      11/12/19


      Service: Proper Opposition: None


      The Court has reviewed the motion. Notice was improper because Debtor fail to include Cottonwood Canyon Hills Community Association and served the listed creditors eighteen days before the hearing, violating the regular notice requirements pursuant to LBR 9013-1. Thus, the Court will CONTINUE the motion, so Debtor can properly serve all the creditors involved and give them ample time to respond to the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella Represented By Suzette Douglas

      Movant(s):

      Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella Represented By Suzette Douglas

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella


      Suzette Douglas


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:19-17537


      Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #19.00 CONT Emergency Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Authorization to use Cash Collateral


      From: 9/4/19, 10/1/19 Also #20

      EH       


      Docket 9


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

      Movant(s):

      Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

      2:00 PM

      6:19-17537


      Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


      Chapter 11


      #20.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


      From:10/1/19 Also #19

      EH   


      Docket 4


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

      10:00 AM

      6:19-17916


      Andrea Jean Gleason


      Chapter 7


      #1.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Altura Credit Union re 2015 Jeep Wrangler


      EH   


      Docket 8


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Andrea Jean Gleason Represented By Morton J Grabel

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-17876


      Myrna B Fernandez


      Chapter 7


      #2.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Altura Credit Union re 2019 Harley Davidson


      Also #3 EH   

      Docket 7


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Myrna B Fernandez Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-17876


      Myrna B Fernandez


      Chapter 7


      #3.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Hyundai Motor Finance re 2020 Hyundai Elantra


      Also #2 EH   

      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Myrna B Fernandez Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-17688


      Steven Roy Huelden and Kathleen Sloan Huelden


      Chapter 7


      #4.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Daimler Trust re: 2017 Mercedes-Benz


      EH       


      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Steven Roy Huelden Represented By Norma Duenas

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Kathleen Sloan Huelden Represented By Norma Duenas

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-17523


      Anna Maria Cabrera


      Chapter 7


      #5.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Ally Financial re: 2012 Chevrolet Cruze


      EH       


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Anna Maria Cabrera Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-17160


      Jose Antonio Trejo and Maria Consuelo Trejo


      Chapter 7


      #6.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Ally Bank re: 2017 Dodge Journey


      EH       


      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Jose Antonio Trejo Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Maria Consuelo Trejo Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-16746


      Michael Thomas Sheahan


      Chapter 7


      #7.00 Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. re 2014 Nissan Altima


      EH   


      Docket 10


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Michael Thomas Sheahan Represented By Marc A Duxbury

      Trustee(s):

      Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:19-16453


      Louis R Gonzales and Nicole A Gonzales


      Chapter 7


      #8.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation re 2016 Toyota Sienna


      EH   


      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Louis R Gonzales Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Nicole A Gonzales Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      10:00 AM

      6:18-19096


      Nathaniel Russell Williams


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and 21st Mortgage Corporation re 1988 HM Systems Manufactured Home


      EH   


      Docket 52


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Nathaniel Russell Williams Represented By Dana Travis

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-19120


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13


      #10.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 27653 Bottle Brush Way Murrieta, CA 92562-2546


      MOVANT: HEINRICH FRANZ BRINKMANN


      From: 11/5/19 EH       

      Docket 12


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/5/2019


      Service is Improper Opposition: None


      Judge Houle’s self-calendaring procedures require that motions to continue the automatic stay which are set on shortened notice must be served on secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, it does not appear that Green Ranch Community Association was served pursuant to Rule 7004. Additionally, the Court notes that while it appears the motion was served pursuant to Rule 7004 on the holder of the first deed of trust, that entity is not actually listed in the body of the motion.

      Instead, it appears that Debtor listed the loan servicer in the body of the motion, while not serving the loan servicer pursuant to Rule 7004. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann


      Chapter 13

      Heinrich Franz Brinkmann Represented By Stephen H Darrow

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:17-12527


      William J Beddingfield


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH       

      Docket 94


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/13/19

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $ 4,581.19

      Trustee Expenses: $


      Attorney Fees: $ 27,551.50

      Attorney Costs: $ 522.43


      Accountant Fees: $1,500


      Trustee and Counsel to explain the details of the financing agreement with Markus Boyd.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      William J Beddingfield Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      William J Beddingfield


      Chapter 7

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Represented By Noreen A Madoyan Noreen A Madoyan Meghann A Triplett

      11:00 AM

      6:15-20280


      Kai Lin Wu


      Chapter 7


      #12.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH       

      Docket 97


      Tentative Ruling:

      11/13/2019

      No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


      The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


      Trustee Fees: $ 4,795.65 Trustee Expenses: $ 597.41


      Attorney Fees: $ 13,262.43 Attorney Costs: $ 354.79


      Accountant Fees: $1,414.46 Accountant Costs: $251.30


      Trustee’s final report also includes a request to pay the secured claim of the County of San Bernardino in full. On March 6, 2017, however, Trustee filed a motion to deem the claim of the County of San Bernardino as fully secured, not entitled to a dividend. On April 17, 2017, the Court granted the motion, entering an order which stated that the claim was "[a]llowed as fully secured, not entitled to a dividend" [Dkt. No. 62].

      Trustee to address the apparent conflict between Trustee’s proposed distribution and the Court order entered April 17, 2017.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Kai Lin Wu


      Chapter 7


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Kai Lin Wu Represented By

      Paul Y Lee

      Trustee(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery

      11:00 AM

      6:17-18617


      Christy Carmen Hammond


      Chapter 7


      #13.00 Motion for Order Compelling Debtor to Vacate and Turnover Real Property EH       

      Docket 40

      Tentative Ruling:

      11/13/19

      BACKGROUND


      On October 16, 2017, Christy Hammond ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is certain real property located at 5918 Ridgegate Dr., Chino Hills, CA 91709 (the "Property"). On January 29, 2018, Debtor obtained a discharge.


      On April 23, 2018, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a notice of assets, subsequently employing an attorney, and a real estate broker. Debtor opposed Trustee’s request to hold a real estate broker, and the Court approved the application after a hearing held on March 27, 2019.


      On October 16, 2019, Trustee filed (1) a motion for turnover of property (the "Motion"); and (2) an adversary complaint against Kenneth Hammond seeking turnover of property from Debtor’s non-filing spouse. The Motion requests that the Court order the occupants to vacate the Property within twenty days, while outlining certain permitted actions in the event that the occupants do not timely vacate the Property.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Christy Carmen Hammond


      Chapter 7

      On October 30, 2019, Debtor filed her opposition to the Motion. Debtor’s primary argument is that administration of the Property will not produce a consequential benefit to the estate. According to Trustee, the value of the Property is

      $600,000-$615,000, the Property is encumbered by security interests totaling

      $402,000, Debtor claimed a homestead exemption in the amount of $100,000, and costs of sale/repairs would total $63,000. These figures would produce nonexempt equity in the range of $35,000 to $50,000. In Debtor’s opposition she asserts that Trustee understates the needed repairs by $52,960. Debtor also contends that Trustee overstates the fair market value of the Property by $50,000-$65,000. Finally, Debtor has increased her homestead exemption from $100,000 to $175,000 pursuant to an amended Schedule C filed October 30, 2019 [Dkt. No. 44]. Debtor also raises various procedural and equitable arguments in her opposition.


      On November 6, 2019, Trustee filed a reply. Of particular note is that Trustee states that it will file an objection to Debtor’s amended homestead exemption.


      DISCUSSION



      11 U.S.C. § 542(a) states:


      Except as provided in subsection (c) or (d) of this section, an entity, other than a custodian, in possession, custody, or control, during the case, of property that the trustee may use, sell, or lease under section 363 of this title, or that the debtor may exempt under section 522 of this title, shall deliver to the trustee, and account for, such property or the value of such property, unless such property is of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate.


      The standard for a turnover action is well established:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Christy Carmen Hammond


      Chapter 7


      "To prevail in a turnover action under § 542, the party seeking turnover must establish (1) that the property is or was in the possession, custody or control of an entity during the pendency of the case, (2) that the property may be used by the trustee in accordance with § 363 or exempted by the debtor under § 522; and (3) that the property has more than inconsequential value or benefit to the estate."


      In re Bailey, 380 B.R. 486, 490 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008); see also In re Newman, 487

      B.R. 193 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2013). Here, the parties dispute the third prong of the turnover standard identified above.


      The Court need not address the parties’ dispute regarding the fair market value of the Property because Debtor’s amended Schedule C, filed October 30, 2019, increased Debtor’s homestead exemption by $75,000. Because Trustee’s own calculation results in realizable equity in the range of $35,000 to $50,000, Debtor’s increased claimed homestead exemption eliminates all realizable equity in the subject property. Pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 1009(a), Debtor has a right to amend her schedules "as a matter of course" until the case is closed. And, pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4003(c), the party objecting to a claimed exemption has the burden of proof.

      Therefore, in the absence of a formal objection, the Court must assume that Debtor’s amended homestead exemption is valid. If Debtor’s amended homestead exemption is valid, then the Property does not have consequential value to the bankruptcy estate.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for Trustee to file an objection to Debtor’s amended homestead exemption.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Debtor(s):


      Christy Carmen Hammond

      Party Information


      Chapter 7

      Christy Carmen Hammond Represented By Eric C Morris

      Movant(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

      Trustee(s):

      Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18416


      Octavio P Garcia


      Chapter 7


      #14.00 Motion by United States Trustee to Dismiss Case with a Re-filing Bar


      CASE DISMISSED 10/15/19


      EH       


      Docket 12

      Tentative Ruling:

      11/13/19

      BACKGROUND


      On September 25, 2019, Octavio Garcia ("Debtor") filed a skeletal Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Debtor has had bankruptcy cases previously dismissed in: (1) 1997;

    2. 2011; (3) March 2019; (4) April 2019; and (5) July 2019. The last four cases were dismissed for failure to file information.


The balance of Debtor’s case commencement documents were due October 9, 2019. On October 8, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to extend the deadline to file case commencement documents, which was denied by the Court the following day. UST filed a motion to dismiss the case with a re-filing bar on October 11, 2019, requesting a refiling-bar of one year. On October 15, 2019, the Court dismissed the case for failure to file case commencement documents.


DISCUSSION


The court notes that it empowered to impose a refiling bar under 11 U.S.C. § 349(a).

11:00 AM

CONT...


Octavio P Garcia


Chapter 7

As COLLIER notes, courts’ analysis of this section is somewhat confused due to confounding "dismissal with prejudice" with "dismissal with injunction against future filings." COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 349.02[3]; compare In re Garcia, 479 B.R. 488 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2012) (denying motion for dismissal with prejudice, but imposing three-year refiling bar) with In re Craighead, 377 B.R. 648 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2007) (appearing to equate dismissal with prejudice with an injunction against refiling).


There is also a circuit split concerning whether an injunction on refiling for more than 180 days is allowed under the Bankruptcy Code. Compare In re Frieouf, 938 F.2d 1099 (10th Cir. 1991) (180 days is maximum allowed length of refiling injunction) with Casse v. Key Bank Nat. Ass’n, 198 F.3d 327 (2nd Cir. 1999) (injunction against filing for more than 180 days permissible). 11 U.S.C. § 349(a) reads:


Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title.


The disagreement revolves around whether the qualifier "Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise" modifies the content after the semi-colon. In re Leavitt noted this disagreement, but since the court was dealing with a dismissal with prejudice, rather than an injunction against refiling, it did not resolve the issue. 209 B.R. 935, 942 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997). Within the Ninth Circuit, it appears the trend is to adopt the reasoning of the Second Circuit and allow injunctions for more than 180 days, and the Court agrees with that reading of the statute. See e.g. In re Velasques, 2012 WL 8255582 at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012).


Here, the instant bankruptcy is Debtor’s fourth skeletal filing in the previous seven months. Furthermore, Debtor failed to disclose any previous filings in the voluntary petition, which is signed under penalty of perjury. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to find the requested one-year refiling bar to be appropriate in the circumstances presented.


Moreover, Debtor’s failure to oppose is deemed consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).

11:00 AM

CONT...


Octavio P Garcia


Chapter 7


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to either GRANT the motion to the extent of imposing a one- year filing bar, and otherwise DENY the motion as MOOT because Debtor’s case has already been dismissed, or construe the motion as a motion to amend the dismissal order and GRANT the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Octavio P Garcia Pro Se

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:13-23186


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


#15.00 Notice of Motion and Chapter 7 Trustees Motion for Order Disallowing Claim 17 of Richard and Donna Cox For Lack of Documentation; Or In the Alternative, Reducing Claim 17 to Reflect Amounts Paid by the Chapter 13 Trustee


Also #16 & #17 EH   

Docket 184

Tentative Ruling:

11/13/19

BACKGROUND:


On August 1, 2013, Richard Cox ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On September 26, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 was subsequently modified once. On June 30, 2016, Debtor’s case was converted to Chapter 7. On January 6, 2017, Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge.


On December 10, 2013, a proof of claim in the amount of $34,000 ("Claim 17") was filed by Debtor on behalf of Richard & Donna Cox ("Creditors"), who appear to be his parents. On October 7, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed an objection to Claim 17, arguing that the claim does not contain adequate supporting information. Trustee asserts that he propounded a request for additional information upon Creditors, but that, despite being given more than 100 days to respond, Creditors took no action.


APPLICABLE LAW:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:


As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that 11 U.S.C. § 501(c) states that: "If a

11:00 AM

CONT...


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7

creditor does not timely file a proof of such creditor’s claim, the debtor or the trustee may file a proof of such claim." As outlined in FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3004, the debtor and the trustee have thirty days once the claim filing deadline has passed to file a proof of claim on behalf of a creditor. Here, the deadline to file proofs of claims was December 11, 2013, yet Debtor filed Claim 17 on December 10, 2013. Therefore, Debtor technically filed the proof of claim prematurely.


Turning to the merits of Claim 17, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(1) states the following: "Except for a claim governed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision, when a claim, or an interest in property of the debtor securing the claim, is based on a writing, a copy of the writing shall be filed with the proof of claim." And FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(f) implies that a proof of claim’s prima facie validity depends upon the claim being "executed and filed in accordance with these rules." Therefore, Claim 17 in this case is not entitled to prima facie validity.


Furthermore, as noted by the BAP: "If the creditor does not provide information or is unable to support its claim, then that in itself may raise an evidentiary basis to object to the unsupported aspects of the claim, or even a basis for evidentiary sanctions, thereby coming within Section 502(b)’s grounds to disallow the claim." In re Heath, 331 B.R. 424, 437 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005). Here, Claim 17 contains no supporting information whatsoever and, despite now being given more than four months to provide such information or amend or supplement Claim 17, Creditors have taken no action. For that reason, and noting that Claim 17 is not entitled to prima facie validity, the Court finds it appropriate to disallow the claim.


Finally, the Court deems Creditors’ failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING

11:00 AM

CONT...


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 17 in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard C Cox Jr Represented By Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

11:00 AM

6:13-23186


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


#16.00 Notice of Motion and Chapter 7 Trustees Motion for Order Reducing the Following Claims to Reflect Amounts Paid by the Chapter 7 Trustee: Claim 1 of Discover Bank, Claim 6 of Hibu Inc., Claim 14 of Citibank NA


Also #15 & #17 EH   

Docket 186

Tentative Ruling:

11/13/19

BACKGROUND:


On August 1, 2013, Richard Cox ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On September 26, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 was subsequently modified once. On June 30, 2016, Debtor’s case was converted to Chapter 7. On January 6, 2017, Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge.


On August 7, 2013, Discover Bank ("Discover") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $5,994.51 ("Claim 1"). On September 9, 2013, Hibu, Inc. ("Hibu") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of

$2,660 ("Claim 6"). And, on November 27, 2013, Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") filed a proof of claim for an unsecured claim in the amount of $9,424 ("Claim 14"). On October 7, 2019, the Chapter 7 trustee filed an objection to Claim 1, Claim 6, and Claim 14, seeking to have the claim reduced by the amount paid by the Chapter 13 trustee during the pendency of the Chapter 13 case.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7

APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


ANALYSIS:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 1019(3) "[a]ll claims actually filed by a creditor before conversion of the case are deemed filed in the chapter 7 case." Therefore, Claim 1, Claim 6, and Claim 14 are all considered claims against the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate.


The Chapter 7 Trustee’s form claim objection primarily relies upon the failure of Discover Bank, Hibu, and Citibank to respond to the requests to amend their claim after conversion of the case. While the Court acknowledges that there is caselaw which supports that argument, that argument does not logically relate to the specific request here (i.e. reduction of the claim to reflect payments made by the Chapter 13 Trustee). In other words, it is not the failure to provide supporting information that is at the crux of this claim objection, it is the fact that the claims have already been partially satisfied.


Clearly, if a case is converted to Chapter 7 after confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, a Chapter 7 trustee may be presented with claims that are properly filed and valid under FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 1019 and 11 U.S.C. § 348, but which have been partially satisfied. While it does not appear that there is any statutory provision explicitly providing for a reduction of the claims, the Court concludes that § 502(b)(1) is sufficient and appropriately applied to this situation. Specifically, the amounts of Claim 1, Claim 6, and Claim 14 which were already paid by the Chapter 13 Trustee no longer represent claims which are enforceable against the debtor’s or the debtor’s property as a matter of law. Specifically, as is noted by the Chapter 7 Trustee and as reflected in docket number 120, the Chapter 13 Trustee disbursed $1,232.84 to Discover Bank, $547.07 to Hibu, and $1,938.15 to Citibank. Therefore, the Court is inclined to reduce Claim 1, Claim 6, and Claim 14 by those amounts.


Additionally, the Court deems Creditors’ failure to oppose to be consent to the relief

11:00 AM

CONT...


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7

requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING


The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, REDUCING Claim 1 to $4,761.67, REDUCING Claim 6 to $2,112.93, and REDUCING Claim 14 to $7,485.85.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard C Cox Jr Represented By Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

11:00 AM

6:13-23186


Richard C Cox, Jr


Chapter 7


#17.00 Notice of Motion and Chapter 7 Trustees Motion for Order Disallowing Claim 8 of Antio, LLC for Lack of Standing; or in the Alternative, Reducing Claim 8 to the Reflect Amounts Paid by the Chapter 13 Trustee


Also #15 & #16 EH       

Docket 192

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Richard C Cox Jr Represented By Summer M Shaw

Movant(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

Trustee(s):

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

2:00 PM

6:19-11766


Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:19-01084 SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. Yahya


#18.00 Motion for Default Judgment EH       

Docket 15

Tentative Ruling:

11/13/19

BACKGROUND


On March 5, 2019, Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition.


On May 22, 2019, Schoolsfirst Federal Credit Union ("Plaintiff") filed a non- dischargeability complaint against Defendant pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). On July 22, 2019, the clerk of court entered default against Defendant.


On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. The motion for default judgment indicates a hearing date of October 17, 2019, which was the date of the continued status conference. During the hearings on October 17, 2019, the Court orally granted the motion for default judgment. While neither FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7055 nor Local Rule 7055 explicitly provides for service upon a defaulted party who never appeared in the action, out of an abundance of caution the Court set the matter for hearing so that notice and service would comply with the more generic requirements of Local Rule 9013-1(d). On October 23, 2019, the clerk of court mailed notice of the hearing to Defendant.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


Chapter 13


DISCUSSION



  1. Entry of Default



    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55 states that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Local Rule 7055-1 provides further requirements relating to a motion for entry of default judgment, and those requirements have been substantially satisfied here.


  2. Motion for Default Judgment



    1. Proper Service of Summons and Complaint


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(b)(1) states, in part:


      1. ervice may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows:


        1. Upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession.

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


      Chapter 13


      Here, it appears that the motion for default judgment has been properly served. Specifically, the complaint was mailed to Defendant at the address he listed on his bankruptcy petition.


    2. Merits of Plaintiff’s claim


Upon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Almog v. Golden Summit Investors Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 12867972 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ("When reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability as true.").


Here, the complaint includes a single cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiff relies upon the presumption of non-dischargeability outlined in § 523(a)(2) (C)(i)(I), which provides that "cash advances aggregating more than $950 that are extensions of consumer credit under an open end credit plan obtained by an individual debtor on or within 70 days before the order for relief under this title, are presumed to be nondischargeable."


Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant had a credit card account with Plaintiff that had a credit limit of $19,800. Plaintiff further asserts that Defendant spent $19,864.05 between February 14, 2019, and March 6, 2019. Plaintiff also asserts that expenses incurred on March 5, 2019, and March 6, 2019, which total $17,450, may have been incurred prepetition. Therefore, the debt at issue, to the extent incurred prepetition, is presumed nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(C)(i)(I).


The Court notes that there are two legal issues with Plaintiff’s request for default

2:00 PM

CONT...


Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


Chapter 13

judgment. First, the Court notes that the vast majority of the debt incurred by Defendant appears to have been incurred postpetition. While Plaintiff asserts that the

$17,450 spent by Defendant on March 6, 2019, may have been incurred prepetition, there is no evidence establishing that that amount is a prepetition debt. To the contrary, the exhibit filed by Plaintiff seems to establish that that debt was actually incurred postpetition.


Regarding Plaintiff’s request for the Court to issue a money judgment, the Court intends to deny such request for two reasons. First of all, Plaintiff has not clearly articulated a non-bankruptcy law basis for a money judgment. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) is not a basis to enter a money judgment; the plain language of the statute provides that it is a basis for finding a debt to be non-dischargeable. More importantly, however, it appears that the bulk of Plaintiff’s claim may be a postpetition debt, and the Court is inclined to conclude that it does not even have jurisdiction to enter a money judgment against Defendant for a postpetition debt.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of holding Plaintiff’s claim for prepetition charges to be nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), DENY the request without prejudice as to postpetition charges, and DENY the request to enter a money judgment.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Hassan Mohamad Adib Yahya


Chapter 13

SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

Plaintiff(s):

SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-11189


Mitchell C. Nelson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01112 Bui v. Ward


#19.00 Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Leonard E. Ward Also #20

EH       


Docket 17

Tentative Ruling:

11/13/19

BACKGROUND


On February 15, 2019, Mitchell Nelson ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On May 28, 2019, Debtor received a discharge.


On August 6, 2019, Trustee filed a complaint against Leonard Ward ("Defendant") for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) account stated; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) turnover of property of the estate; and (7) disallowance of claims. On September 13, 2019, the clerk of court entered default against Defendant. On October 4, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant.


The relevant factual background is as follows. In May 2016, Defendant approached Debtor about providing a small business loan for Defendant’s "clean up and scrap metal hauling business," representing that Defendant could repay the loan from proceedings from a pending civil suit pertaining to wrongful incarceration. On October 3, 2016, Debtor loaned Defendant $65,000, to be repaid by December 1,

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mitchell C. Nelson


Chapter 7

2016, with $10,000 in interest. After Defendant did not make any payment, the parties reached an oral agreement in January 2017 whereby Debtor would continue to loan Defendant money, and Defendant would repay the amount after resolving his civil suit. By September 2018, Debtor had loaned Defendant more than $2.7 million without Defendant having made any payment. While not detailed in the body of the motion for default judgment, Exhibit 3 to the motion contains a copy of an incident report logged by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department which appears to indicate that Defendant repeatedly threatened and assaulted Debtor, causing Debtor to continue loaning money.


On October 25, 2018, Debtor issued a written demand for Defendant to repay

$2,707,000 within two weeks. Defendant did not make any payment. According to Trustee, on June 14, 2019, "the Trustee had a phone conversation with the Defendant where [he] acknowledged that he owed the money to the Debtor and was willing to sign a document reflecting the same." [Dkt. No. 17, pg. 4, lines 12-14].


DISCUSSION



  1. Entry of Default



    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55, incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7055, states that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55 and Local Rule 7055-1 provides further requirements relating to a motion for entry of default judgment, and those requirements have been substantially satisfied here.


  2. Motion for Default Judgment



    1. Proper Service of Summons and Complaint

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Mitchell C. Nelson


      Chapter 7


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(b)(1) states, in part:


      1. ervice may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows:


        1. Upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession.


      Here, it appears that the motion for default judgment has been properly served. Specifically, the complaint was mailed to Defendant at 108 N. Lowell St., Lake Elsinore, CA 92563, an address which is identified as Defendant’s residence in various exhibits attached to the motion.


    2. Merits of Plaintiff’s claim


Upon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Almog v. Golden Summit Investors Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 12867972 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ("When reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability as true.").


Here, the complaint includes seven causes of action, although the motion for default judgment does not pursue the third through seventh causes of action. Instead, Trustee simply relies on the first two causes of action: (1) breach of contract; and (2) breach of

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mitchell C. Nelson


Chapter 7

oral contract.


The elements of a breach of contract claim under California law are: (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance (or excuse for nonperformance) under the contract, (3) defendant’s breach of the contract, and (4) damages resulting from defendant’s breach." AMG & Assocs., LLC v. AmeriPride Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 9275402 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Richman v. Hartley, 224 Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). Here, the Court concludes that Trustee has sufficiently established the elements of its first cause of action. Specifically, Trustee has established the first element by attaching a copy of a written note whereby Defendant promised to repay Debtor $75,000 by December 1, 2016 in consideration for the receipt of $65,000. Trustee has established the second element because the note, signed by Defendant, acknowledges receipt of $65,000 from Debtor. Trustee has established the third element by asserting that Defendant did not make the required contractual payment, which is further established by the supporting evidence, namely Exhibit 3. Finally, Trustee has established the fourth element, damages, because Defendant’s failure to make the contractual payment naturally damaged Debtor.


As stated by Trustee, the elements of a breach of oral contract are the same as the elements for a breach of written contract. See, e.g., Mountain View Surgical Ctr. v. Cigna Health Corp., 2015 WL 519066 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2015); Stockton Mortg., Inc.

v. Tope, 233 Cal. App. 4th 437 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). For the reasons recited in the previous paragraph, Trustee has established the second element of a claim for breach of oral contract through alleging and providing a list of payments from Debtor to Defendant totaling $2,707,700. These factual allegations, taken as true after the default of Defendant, establish the second element.


The first element, existence of an oral contract, is less clear. Trustee’s motion for default judgment argues the following: "In or about January 2017, Defendant entered into an oral contract with Debtor whereby Debtor agreed to continue to loan money for Defendant’s business expansion and Defendant continued to promise repayment of the loan as soon as his civil suit was resolved." [Dkt. No. 17, pg. 7, lines 21-23].


Without determining whether Trustee has sufficiently alleged the existence of an

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mitchell C. Nelson


Chapter 7

enforceable oral contract, the Court notes that the fatal flaw in Trustee’s argument is that, according to the contractual terms identified by Trustee, Defendant has not actually breached the oral contract. Specifically, pursuant to the very informal oral contract outlined by Trustee, Defendant was not contractually committed to repaying any money until the civil suit was resolved. Trustee not having alleged that the civil suit was resolved, the Trustee cannot establish the third element of the second cause of action.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of awarding Trustee judgment on the first claim for relief. Trustee to address the next steps in light of this tentative ruling.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mitchell C. Nelson Represented By Douglas A Plazak

Defendant(s):

Leonard E. Ward Pro Se

Movant(s):

Lynda T Bui Represented By

Lauren E Raya Rika Kido

Plaintiff(s):

Lynda T Bui Represented By

Lauren E Raya

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Mitchell C. Nelson


Rika Kido


Chapter 7

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Rika Kido

2:00 PM

6:19-11189


Mitchell C. Nelson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01112 Bui v. Ward


#20.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01112. Complaint by Lynda T Bui against Leonard E. Ward. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Oral Contract; (3) Account Stated; (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Unjust Enrichment [11 U.S.C. § 105]; (6) Turnover of Property of the Estate [11 U.S.C. § 542]; and

(7) Disallowance of Claims [11 U.S.C. § 502(d)] Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(11 (Recovery of money/property - 542 turnover of property)) (Raya, Lauren)


From: 10/9/19 Also #19

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mitchell C. Nelson Represented By Douglas A Plazak

Defendant(s):

Leonard E. Ward Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Lynda T Bui Represented By

Lauren E Raya Rika Kido

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Mitchell C. Nelson


Chapter 7

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Rika Kido

2:00 PM

6:18-20247


Stephen Lynn Overmyer


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01039 McCune v. Overmyer


#21.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01039. Complaint by

B. Lynn McCune against Stephen Overmyer . false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud))


From: 4/17/19, 7/31/19, 7/31/19 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephen Lynn Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

Defendant(s):

Stephen Overmyer Represented By Gordon L Dayton

Plaintiff(s):

B. Lynn McCune Represented By James A Rainboldt

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:17-15301


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7


#22.00 CONT Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order Approving Compromise of Controversy under Rule 9019


From: 9/18/19, 10/16/19, 11/6/19 EH       

Docket 24

Tentative Ruling:

9/18/19

BACKGROUND


On June 24, 2017, Jaspar & Brenda Stevens ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On October 10, 2017, Debtors received a discharge, and the case was closed the next day.


On July 24, 2019, UST filed a motion to reopen the case so that Trustee could investigate a proposed settlement of a lawsuit; the case was reopened the same day. On August 16, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise. The compromise relates to the settlement of the state court litigation initially commenced by Debtors against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. The material terms of the compromise are that Trustee shall execute a request for dismissal of the state court litigation in return for

$50,000.


On August 28, 2019, Debtors filed an opposition to the compromise motion. Debtors argue that the state court lawsuit was properly abandoned upon the conclusion of Debtors’ bankruptcy case, and that, as a result, the claims are not property of the estate

2:00 PM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

and cannot be compromised by Trustee. On September 10, 2019, Trustee filed a reply arguing that the state court litigation was not abandoned.


The relevant material facts are not in dispute. Debtors concede that the litigation was not disclosed on their schedules. Trustee concedes that the litigation was disclosed on the statement of financial affairs. The parties dispute revolves around the interpretation of the word "scheduled" in 11 U.S.C. § 554(c).


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 554(c) states: "Unless the court orders otherwise, any property scheduled under section 521(a)(1) of this title not otherwise administered at the time of the closing of a case is abandoned to the debtor and administered for purposes of section 350 of this title." "Unless the court orders otherwise, property of the estate that is not abandoned under this section and that is not administered in the case remains property of the estate." 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1) states


  1. The debtor shall

    1. file


      1. a list of creditors; and

      2. unless the court orders otherwise –

        1. a schedule of assets and liabilities;

        2. a schedule of current income and current expenditures


        3. a statement of the debtor’s financial affairs and, if section 342(b) applies, a certificate –

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens

          1. of an attorney whose name is indicated on the petition as the attorney for the debtor, or a bankruptcy petition preparer signing the petition under section 110(b)(1), indicating that such attorney or the bankruptcy petition preparer delivered to the debtor the notice required by section 342(b); or


          2. if not attorney is no indicated, and no bankruptcy petition preparer signed the petition, of the debtor that such notice was received and read by the debtor;


        4. copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor from any employer of the debtor;


        5. a statement of the amount of monthly net income, itemized to show how the amount is calculated; and


        6. a statement disclosing any reasonably anticipated increase in income or expenditures over the 12- month period following the date of the filing of the petition


Chapter 7


Debtors primarily rely upon In re Hill, 195 B.R. 147 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1996). Trustee

2:00 PM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

implicitly concedes that In re Hill supports Debtors’ position, but Trustee argues that "In re Hill relied on an erroneous statutory interpretation, went against policy and authority in relieving debtors of their obligations and consequences, and was essentially disposed of on other grounds that section 554(c), and should therefore not be followed by this Court." [Dkt. No. 30, pg. 7, lines 22-24]. In re Hill concluded that:


The language of § 521 itself supports a broader reading of "scheduled" in § 554(c), because the paragraph which follows paragraph § 521(1) makes a particular reference to "debtor’s schedule of assets and liabilities." The use of this specific reference strongly suggests that the drafts of the Code will say "schedule of assets and liabilities" when that narrow requirement is intended, and that a reference to § 521(1) is a reference to § 521(1) as a whole.


Id. at 150; see also U.S. ex rel. Fortenberry v. Holloway Group, Inc., 515 B.R. 827 (W.D. Okla. 2014) ("In other words the Court finds that the ‘scheduled’ requirement in § 554(c) refers to all of the disclosures required in § 521(a)(1), including the debtor’s statement of financial affairs.").


On the other hand, Trustee points to multiple cases from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel which held that "[m]entioning an asset in the statement of financial affairs is not the same as scheduling it for purposes of abandonment under § 554(c)." In re Pretscher-Johnson, 2017 WL 2779977 at *5 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2017); In re Kayne, 453 B.R. 372 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011) (same); see also In re Fossey, 119 B.R. 268 (D. Utah 1990) ("The case have held that the word ‘scheduled’ in § 554(c) refers to property listed in the debtor’s Schedule of Assets and Liabilities."). While Debtor has provided a recent Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case which seems to backtrack from the Panel’s earlier position to a degree, as noted by Trustee, the reasoning in In re Tadayon, 2019 WL 1923044 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2019) is less than clear, bordering on bizarre.


Noting that the majority of the caselaw on this issue favors the position of the Trustee, the Court is inclined to conclude that the listing of the pending lawsuit in the statement of financial affairs is inadequate to trigger a technical

2:00 PM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7

abandonment of that asset pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). While the Court acknowledges that the drafting of § 554(c) is somewhat ambiguous given that the statute could refer to § 521(a)(1)(B)(i), instead of § 521(a)(1) generally, the use of the word "scheduled" must be interpreted in relation to the preparation of "schedules." Divorcing the verb "scheduled" from the noun "schedules" does not appear to be a reasonable approach to statutory interpretation, especially considering that in other sections, the Code includes the phrase "neither listed nor scheduled under section 521(a)(1)." 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3).


Turning to the compromise motion, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable views. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.


Here, the evidence before the Court is insufficient to assess the "fairness, reasonableness and adequacy" of the compromise. Specifically, the Court notes that the compromise motion does not include any meaningful detail regarding the nature of the state court litigation to be compromise, nor does the motion contain any description of the amount of damages sought in state court. Because of this absence of information, the Court is wholly unable to assess the reasonableness of the $50,000 to be received by the bankruptcy estate.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Jasper Stevens and Brenda Louise Murray Stevens


Chapter 7


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to CONTINUE the matter for supplemental evidence as to the

A&C Properties elements.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jasper Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

Joint Debtor(s):

Brenda Louise Murray Stevens Represented By Gary S Saunders Frank X Ruggier

Movant(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Represented By Julie Philippi

2:00 PM

6:17-13853


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01197 Itria Ventures, LLC v. Asif et al


#23.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01197. Complaint by Itria Ventures, LLC against Malik Muhammad Asif, Zobia Asif. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Chekian, Michael)


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By David T Egli

Zobia Asif Represented By

David T Egli

Joint Debtor(s):

Zobia Asif Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Itria Ventures, LLC Represented By Michael F Chekian

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey

2:00 PM

CONT...


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

2:00 PM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


Chapter 13


#24.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 11 by Claimant Natasha Reynoso and Mark Reynoso

HOLDING DATE


From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19, 8/21/19, 11/13/19


Also #25 EH   

Docket 44


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


Chapter 13


#25.00 Order to show cause why claim objections should not be overruled or sanctions issues for failure to prosecute the matter


Also #24 EH   

Docket 94


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


#26.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [13] Amended Complaint by Michael J Hemming on behalf of Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01277. Complaint by Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Douglas Edward Goodman, Anne Louise Goodman. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) filed by Plaintiff Mark & Natasha Reynoso)

(Holding Date)


From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19, 8/21/19, 10/16/19


Also #27 EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Defendant(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Edward T Weber


Chapter 13

Plaintiff(s):

Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


#27.00 Order to appear and show cause why case should not be dismissed or sanctions issued for failure to prosecute the matter


Also #26 EH   

Docket 167


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Defendant(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Plaintiff(s):

Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

2:00 PM

6:16-16720


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


#28.00 Order to show cause why adversary proceeding should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution


Also #29 & #30 EH   

Docket 203


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

Tavares Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

2:00 PM

6:16-16720


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


#29.00 CONT Motion in Limine by Defendants Real Time Resolutions, Inc. and The Bank of New York Mellon fka The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certification Holders of CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-D for an Order to exclude evidence to be offered by Plaintiff at trial


From: 10/2/19 Also #28 & #30 EH   

Docket 192


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

Tavares Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker Renee M Parker James F Lewin James F Lewin

Plaintiff(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:16-16720


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:17-01187 Henry v. Real Time Resolutions Inc et al


#30.00 CONT Pre-Trial Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01187. Complaint fld 8-25-17 - Dischargeability, willful and malicious injury, validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property, injunctive relief


From: 8/28/19, 10/2/19 Also #28 & #29

EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luevina Henry Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Real Time Resolutions Inc Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Renee M Parker James F Lewin

Riverside County Sheriff Represented By Ronak N Patel

Tavares Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Luevina Henry Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Luevina Henry


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

3:00 PM

6:03-15174


Devore Stop A General Partners


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:12-01498 Morschauser v. Continental Capital LLC et al


#31.00 Status Conference Hearing RE: Complaint by William G Morschauser against Continental Capital LLC , Stephen Collias , Jesse Bojorquez , American Business Investments , Mohammed Abdizadeh


EH       


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12/11/19 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Devore Stop A General Partners Represented By

Arshak Bartoumian - DISBARRED - Newton W Kellam

Devore Stop Represented By

Hutchison B Meltzer

Defendant(s):

Continental Capital LLC Represented By Cara J Hagan

Stephen Collias Represented By Cara J Hagan

Jesse Bojorquez Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

American Business Investments Represented By Lawrence J Kuhlman

Autumn D Spaeth ESQ

Mohammed Abdizadeh Pro Se

3:00 PM

CONT...


Devore Stop A General Partners


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

William G Morschauser Represented By Hutchison B Meltzer Reid A Winthrop

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-16267


Samuel T Saavedra and Suzanne M Saavedra


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3542 North Oranewood Avenue, Rialto, CA 92377


MOVANT: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST


EH   


Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). DENY request for relief from § 1301(a) co-debtor stay because the motion was not served on any co-debtor as that term is used in the statute. GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request for adequate protection as moot.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Samuel T Saavedra Represented By Michael R Totaro

Joint Debtor(s):

Suzanne M Saavedra Represented By Michael R Totaro

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Samuel T Saavedra and Suzanne M Saavedra


Chapter 13

U.S. Bank National Association as Represented By

Ashish R Rawat Diane Weifenbach

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-14816


Daniel W. Sargent


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: (2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee Vin # 1C4RJEBG6GC385455)


MOVANT: ALLY BANK LEASE TRUST


EH   


Docket 40

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 11/18/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel W. Sargent Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Movant(s):

Ally Bank Lease Trust Represented By Adam N Barasch

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13328


Luis Antonio Gaeta


Chapter 13


#3.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Confirming Termination of Stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(j) or That No Stay is in Effect under 11 U.S.C.

362(c)(4)(A)(ii) 2013 Ford Edge SEL Sport Utility 4D (VIN#: 2FMDK3JC6DBB46134). (3))


MOVANT: BALBOA THRIFT & LOAN


EH   


Docket 39


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


Debtor had a previous Chapter 13 case dismissed on March 28, 2019. Pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A), the automatic stay, absent further order of the Court, was set to terminate on May 19, 2019. On May 7, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to continue the automatic stay and a corresponding application shortening time. The Court, however, denied the application shortening time and, therefore, the automatic stay expired pursuant to the operation of § 362(c)(3)(A) on May 19, 2019. On that basis, the Court will GRANT the motion, confirming that the automatic stay is longer in effect.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Luis Antonio Gaeta Represented By Daniel King

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Luis Antonio Gaeta


Chapter 13

Balboa Thrift & Loan Represented By Keith E Herron

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16072


Sara Rolston


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 BMW 2 Series 230i Coupe 2D


MOVANT: BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA


EH   


Docket 22


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Movant to apprise the Court of the status of arrears. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sara Rolston Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

BMW Bank of North America Represented By Cheryl A Skigin

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17112


Jeff Book


Chapter 13


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO, VIN: 1GC4 C0C8 XFF1 36295


MOVANT: MECHANICS BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC BANK


EH       


Docket 21


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Late

Parties to address the merits of the late-filed opposition. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jeff Book Represented By

Eric C Morris

Movant(s):

MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17205


Steve Everett and Jennifer Everett


Chapter 7


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2013 Ford Edge


MOVANT: EXETER FINANCE LLC


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


First of all, the Court notes that Local Rule 9013-1(d) requires matters that are to be set for hearing to be served on twenty-one days’ notice. Here, Movant served this motion twenty days prior to the scheduled hearing.


More importantly, 11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(1)(A) provides:


(h)(1) In a case in which the debtor is an individual, the stay provided by subsection (a) is terminated with respect to personal property of the estate or of the debtor securing in whole or in part a claim, or subject to an unexpired lease, and such personal property shall no longer be property of the estate if the debtor fails within the applicable time set by section 521(a)(2) –

(A) to file timely any statement of intention required under section 521(a)(2) with respect to such personal property or to indicate in such statement that the debtor will either surrender such personal property or retain it and, if retaining such personal property, either redeem such personal property pursuant to section 722, enter into an agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c)

11:00 AM

CONT...


Steve Everett and Jennifer Everett

applicable to the debt secured by such personal property, or assume such unexpired lease pursuant to section 365(p) if the trustee does not do so, as applicable;


Chapter 7


(emphasis added). Here, Debtor failed to address the subject collateral in his statement of intention. Therefore, the automatic stay has terminated as a matter of law. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Steve Everett Represented By

Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Everett Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

Exeter Finance LLC Represented By Alan Leeth

Trustee(s):

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17598


Anthea Gladys Bourque


Chapter 7


#7.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from automatic stay with supporting declarations ACTION IN NON-BANKRUPTCY FORUM RE: Insurance proceeds


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Anthea Gladys Bourque Represented By Alec L Harshey

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Sheryl K Ith

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17611


Johnny Ortega, Jr. and Alexis Monique Thompson


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, VIN: 3GCPCREC8JG330995


MOVANT: AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. DBA GM FINANCIAL


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request for adequate protection as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Johnny Ortega Jr. Represented By Steven A Alpert

Joint Debtor(s):

Alexis Monique Thompson Represented By Steven A Alpert

Movant(s):

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Johnny Ortega, Jr. and Alexis Monique Thompson

Sheryl K Ith


Chapter 7

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18380


Laura Marie Beauchamp


Chapter 7


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6084 Holland Court, Corona, CA 92880


MOVANT: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


EH       


Docket 17


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request for adequate protection as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Laura Marie Beauchamp Represented By Ronald W Ask

Movant(s):

THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18669


Patrick Kojima


Chapter 7


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 FORD EDGE, VIN 2FMPK3J82HBB61910


MOVANT: CAB WEST LLC


EH   


Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


The Court notes that the proof of service attached to the motion identifies a service date of September 24, 2019, a prepetition date. Movant to address this service deficiency.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Patrick Kojima Represented By Edward J. Fetzer

Movant(s):

Cab West, LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18796


Gretha A Phillips


Chapter 7


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 66755 1st Street, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240


MOVANT: TIAA FSB


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2, 3, and 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gretha A Phillips Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Movant(s):

TIAA FSB Represented By

Darlene C Vigil

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18912


Lisa Bridges


Chapter 13


#12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 3100 Van Buren Blvd. #917, Riverside, CA 92503


MOVANT: 3100 VAN BUREN BOULEVARD APARTMENTS INVESTORS LLC


EH   


Docket 8

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Lisa Bridges Pro Se

Movant(s):

3100 VAN BUREN BOULEVARD Represented By

Scott Andrews

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18962


Walter Chavira


Chapter 7


#13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA ACCORD, VIN: 1HGC R2F3 0HA0 17050


MOVANT: MECHANICS BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION


EH       


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request for adequate protection as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Walter Chavira Represented By Nancy Korompis

Movant(s):

MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19053


Jose Diaz


Chapter 7


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 17369 Marygold Avenue, Bloomington, CA 92316


MOVANT: RESIDENTIAL BANCORP


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request for adequate protection as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Diaz Pro Se

Movant(s):

RESIDENTIAL BANCORP Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19253


Nery B. Mejia


Chapter 13


#15.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 25276 Drake Dr. Moreno Valley, CA 92553


MOVANT: NERY B MEJIA


EH   


Docket 6

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Nery B. Mejia Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Movant(s):

Nery B. Mejia Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19345


Michael Christopher Oropallo and Lauren Elaine Oropallo


Chapter 13


#16.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 2015 Ford Explorer


MOVANT: MICHAEL AND LAUREN OROPALLO


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


Debtor had a bankruptcy case dismissed in the previous calendar year after failing to perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the Court. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

§ 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc), the instant bankruptcy case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C), the Court requires "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut the presumption of bad faith. Here, Debtor has not provided clear evidence regarding a change in circumstance, only asserting that their income and expenses have "stabilized." More importantly, the secured creditor was not served pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(h) as required by the Court’s procedures for hearings on motions to continue the automatic stay. For all these reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Christopher Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Christopher Oropallo and Lauren Elaine Oropallo


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Lauren Elaine Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Movant(s):

Michael Christopher Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Lauren Elaine Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19488


Aron Christopher Wright


Chapter 13


#17.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate: 36247 Stableford Court, Beaumont, CA 92223


MOVANT: ARON CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court, having reviewed the motion, notice appearing proper, no opposition having been filed, and good cause appearing, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion to the extent of CONTINUING the automatic stay as to all creditors.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Aron Christopher Wright Represented By Tom A Moore

Movant(s):

Aron Christopher Wright Represented By Tom A Moore

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19593


Jose Antonio Mele and Victoria Isabel Mele


Chapter 13


#18.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate: 6224 Stanton Ave., Highland, CA 92346


MOVANT: JOSE MELE & VICTORIA MELE


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


Judge Houle’s self-calendaring procedures require that motions to continue the automatic stay that are set on shortened notice must be served on secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, it does not appear that either of the secured creditors, United Wholesale Mortgage and Fast Auto Loans, were served pursuant to Rule 7004, with the former being served at a PO Box. The Court also notes that the face page of the motion simple states that notice is being directed to "all interested parties" rather than identifying the specific secured creditors. Moreover, as to the merits, the evidence does not address the cost of "other forms of treatment" that Debtor will incur, and whether those costs are covered by insurance. Therefore, the Court is inclined to CONTINUE the hearing on the motion for proper service of an amended motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Antonio Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jose Antonio Mele and Victoria Isabel Mele


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Victoria Isabel Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

Movant(s):

Jose Antonio Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

Victoria Isabel Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19251


Adam Brian Britt and Kenya Lashawn Britt


Chapter 13


#18.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 3046 Statice Court, Hemet, CA 92545


MOVANT: ADAM AND KENYA BRITT


From: 11/12/19 EH       

Docket 10

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


11/12/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


Debtors failed to explain why their son’s ailment will not be a continuing problem for their plan. Appearing that Debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(ii) that the case was not filed in good faith, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Adam Brian Britt Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

Joint Debtor(s):

Kenya Lashawn Britt Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Movant(s):


Adam Brian Britt and Kenya Lashawn Britt

Matthew D. Resnik


Chapter 13

Adam Brian Britt Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

Kenya Lashawn Britt Represented By Matthew D. Resnik

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19680


Andrea Linda Santean-Whippie


Chapter 7


#18.20 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 14 Bellisimo Court Rancho Mirage, CA 92270


MOVANT: KIRK IWANOWSKI, JACQUELINE KATZ


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Andrea Linda Santean-Whippie Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#19.00 (Jointly Administered - LEAD CASE)

CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19, 9/17/19


Also #20 & #21 EH   

Docket 630

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#20.00 (Jointly Administered with Inland Machinery Inc)

CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19, 9/17/19


Also #19 & #21 EH   

Docket 630

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11


#21.00 (Jointly Administered with Another Meridian Company LLC) CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 3/7/17, 7/11/17, 7/24/17, 9/26/17, 10/24/17, 1/30/18, 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19, 9/17/19


Also #19 & #20 EH   

Docket 630

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/12/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#22.00 CONT Insurance Company of the West 's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Common Fund Doctrine

(Holding Date)


From: 7/16/19, 9/17/19 Also #23 & #24

EH   


Docket 74


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

United states of america Represented By Charles Parker Najah J Shariff

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Movant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Jennifer Leland

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#23.00 CONT Plaintiff's Notice of Additional Funds to Interplead; Declaration of Melissa Davis Lowe in Support Thereof

(HOLDING DATE)


From: 7/30/19, 9/17/19 Also #22 & #24

EH       


Docket 87


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

United states of america Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation

Charles Parker Najah J Shariff


Chapter 11

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Movant(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Jennifer Leland

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Jennifer Leland

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:13-25794


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:17-01286 ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation et a v. Insurance Company


#24.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01286. Complaint by ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation, Another Meridian Company, LLC, Inland Machinery, Inc. against Gotte Electric, Inc., Insurance Company Of The West, Employment Development Department, Trico-Savi Business Park, L.P., a California limited partnership, Angela Denise McKnight, Steven Schonder, Western Alliance Bank, an Arizona corporation, United states of america, Carlin Law Group APC, Ledcor Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. (Charge To Estate - $350.00).

Complaint in Interpleader Nature of Suit: (02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) (Bastian, James)

Trico-Savi Business Park L.P. - Dismissed 12/28/17

Western Alliance Bank, dba Torrey Pines Bank - Dismissed 2/1/18 Gotte Electric, Inc - Dismissed 3/14/18

Ledcor Construction Inc - Dismissed 3/26/18


From: 2/27/18, 10/9/18, 10/16/18, 12/19/18, 2/27/19, 5/8/19, 7/31/19, 9/17/19


Also #22 & #23 EH   

Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

CONT...


ASR Constructors Inc a California Corporation


Chapter 11

Defendant(s):

Insurance Company Of The West Represented By

Jennifer Leland David B Shemano Howard J Weg

Employment Development Represented By

Elisa B Wolfe-Donato

Angela Denise McKnight Pro Se

Steven Schonder Pro Se

United states of america Represented By Charles Parker Najah J Shariff

Carlin Law Group APC Represented By Kevin R Carlin

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

ASR Constructors Inc a California Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe Jennifer Leland

Another Meridian Company, LLC Represented By

James C Bastian Jr Melissa Davis Lowe

Inland Machinery, Inc. Represented By James C Bastian Jr

Melissa Davis Lowe

2:00 PM

6:17-15816


Integrated Wealth Management Inc


Chapter 11

Adv#: 6:19-01100 Issa v. Delaney et al


#25.00 Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Ryan Delaney EH       

Docket 34

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 11/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Integrated Wealth Management Inc Represented By

Andrew B Levin Robert E Opera Jim D Bauch

Defendant(s):

Ryan Delaney Represented By Paul A Reynolds

John Wong Represented By

David P Bleistein Lisa Hiraide

Movant(s):

Ryan Delaney Represented By Paul A Reynolds

Plaintiff(s):

J. Michael Issa Represented By Joseph R Ignatuk

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#26.00 CONT Debtor's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case From: 7/16/19, 8/20/19, 10/29/19

Also #27 EH       

Docket 162


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

Movant(s):

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:18-16149


Richard Garavito


Chapter 11


#27.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing and Case Management Conference and (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/21/18, 10/16/18, 12/4/18, 12/18/18, 1/15/19, 2/5/19, 4/16/19, 5/28/19, 7/16/19, 8/20/19, 10/29/19


Also #26 EH    

Docket 7


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard Garavito Represented By Tamar Terzian

2:00 PM

6:18-16908


Visiting Nurse Association of the Inland Counties


Chapter 11


#28.00 CONT Order (1) Setting Scheduling Hearing And Case Management Conference And (2) Requiring Status Report


From: 8/28/18, 9/25/18, 10/30/18, 11/13/18, 12/18/18, 2/26/19, 3/27/19, 5/1/19, 7/30/19, 9/17/19


EH   


Docket 4


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Visiting Nurse Association of the Represented By

David M Goodrich Beth Gaschen Jennifer Vicente Ryan W Beall Steven T Gubner Jason B Komorsky

11:00 AM

6:11-12667


Maximino Romero Torres and Rebecca Anne Torres


Chapter 7


#1.00 Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case EH   

Docket 49

Tentative Ruling:

MOTION TO REOPEN CASE TO AVOID LIEN

11/20/19

BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2011, Maximino Romero Torres and Rebecca Anne Torres (collectively "Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On May 19, 2011, Debtors’ debts were discharged, and, on May 23, 2011, Debtors’ Chapter 7 voluntary petition was closed.

Eight years later on February 15, 2019, Debtors filed a motion to reopen their Chapter 7 case (the "First Reopening Motion"). (Dkt. No. 25). The motion alleges that Debtors were unaware of Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC ("Ford") recording an abstract of judgment. (Dkt. No. 49, Ex. B). The balance due on the judgment was

$10,441.08. Id. Debtors prayed for the court to reopen the case, so they can avoid the lien.

The Court, after reviewing the motion, granted the motion, opening the case for sixty days from entry of the order. Debtor then filed a motion to avoid the Ford lien ("First Avoidance Motion"). Debtors claim that the homestead exemption is impaired by the Ford’s lien, which was a judicial lien.

The Court denied the First Avoidance Motion without prejudice, stating there was insufficient evidence in support of the exemption amount and the fair market value of the property. (Dkt. No. 30). The case remained opened, so Debtors filed a second motion to avoid the lien ("Second Avoidance Motion"). (Dkt. No. 32). The Court denied the Second Avoidance Motion as well for a myriad of reasons: (1) the Debtors put the incorrect amount of their homestead exemption, including that the appraisal amount of

11:00 AM

CONT...

Maximino Romero Torres and Rebecca Anne Torres

Chapter 7

the property is markedly less than what Debtors allege to be the fair market value; (2) Debtors did not provide the current amount of the lien; (3) Debtors did not serve Ford, etc.


Again, the Debtors filed another motion to avoid the lien ("Third Avoidance Motion") addressing the Court’s reasons for denying the Second Avoidance Motion. Like the prior motions, the Court found the Third Avoidance Motion incomplete and inaccuracies abound. By order entered on October 9, 2019, the Court denied the Third Avoidance Motion without prejudice. On the same day the Court denied the Third Avoidance Motion, the case was closed because sixty days had passed.


The Debtors now filed another motion to reopen the case (the "Second Motion to Reopen").


DISCUSSION



Of note, Debtors’ motion fails to reference as of the prior history of attempting to avoid the lien.


11 U.S.C §350(b):

"A case may be reopened…to administer assets, to accord relief to the Debtor, or for other cause."


In this motion, the Debtors request to reopen the case to have a lien removed by a Ford Motor Credit Company ("Ford"). (Dkt. No. 49, Pg 3).


"[B]ankruptcy courts consider several factors in determining whether to reopen a case, including, but not limited to…the length of time that the case was closed." In re Easley-Brooks, 487 B.R. 400, 407 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 2013). "The mere passage of time does weigh against reopening and requires a greater showing of cause to support reopening…It is essential to the creditors as it is desirable to the bankrupt that this element of certainty be destroyed only for the most compelling cases." In re Consol.

Freight Corp., 554 B.R. 396, 402 (C. D. Ca. 2016).

"While the passage of time in itself does not constitute prejudice to the opposing

11:00 AM

CONT...


Maximino Romero Torres and Rebecca Anne Torres


Chapter 7

party, a delay may be prejudicial when combined with other factors such as court costs and attorney’s fee in state-court proceedings." Redmond v. Fifth Third Bank, 624 F.3d 793, 799 (7th Cir. 2010). In this situation, the Debtors did not become aware of the lien until the creditors filed an application for and renewal of Judgment in the Superior Court of California on November 9, 2018. (Dkt. No. 49, Pg 3). Ford presumably had to incur fees and costs to renew the judgment. Second, an eight-year delay is excessive, and the Debtors’ repeated failures to avoid the lien when the case was previously opened weigh against allowing a subsequent reopening.


The debtors’ reason—because they claim the case has not been fully administered—does not in these circumstances establish the greater showing of cause to support reopening. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to deny the motion.


TENTATIVE RULING



For the reasons stated above, including Debtors’ repeated failure to avoid the lien, the prejudice to the creditor due to the passage of time, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maximino Romero Torres Represented By James A Alderson

Joint Debtor(s):

Rebecca Anne Torres Represented By James A Alderson

Movant(s):

Maximino Romero Torres Represented By James A Alderson

11:00 AM

CONT...


Maximino Romero Torres and Rebecca Anne Torres


Chapter 7

Rebecca Anne Torres Represented By James A Alderson James A Alderson

Trustee(s):

Patricia J Zimmermann (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-19465


Joseph F. Mark


Chapter 7


#2.00 Motion Objecting To Debtor's Exemptions EH   

Docket 62

Tentative Ruling:

11/20/19

BACKGROUND


On November 6, 2018, Joseph F. Mark ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtor converted his petition to a Chapter 7 voluntary petition on March 21, 2019. Lynda T. Bui was subsequently appointed as the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee").


Debtor filed exemptions under Cal. Civ. Code §703.140. (Dkt. No.1, Schedule C). On April 23, 2019, Debtor, in the initial meeting of the creditors, testified to the Trustee, that he was married and had moved out of his martial home. He later provided his martial license. Based on Cal. Civ. Code. §703.140(a)(2), the exemptions that the debtor claimed, if he is married and filing separately, can only be utilized if both spouses signed a waiver.


The Trustee, therefore, requested a waiver signed by the Debtor and the non- filing spouse. The Debtor informed the Trustee that his spouse would not sign the waiver. While the request for a waiver was pending, Debtor filed an amended Schedule A/B and C. (Dkt. No. 44). However, Debtor still maintained the exemptions provided by

§703.140(b)(1) et seq.

The Trustee request that the Debtor amend his Schedule C to use exemptions under Cal. Civ. Code §704.100, non-bankruptcy state exemption, and turnover his 2018 tax refunds. This motion was filed on October 30, 2019, and the continued meeting of the creditors is set for November 4, 2019.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Joseph F. Mark


Chapter 7


DISCUSSION



Cal. Civ. Code §703.140(a) provides that debtor must use the California exemptions pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §704.010 et seq., unless Debtor obtains a waiver from his non-filing spouse. Not having done so, and having only claimed federal exemptions under Cal. Civ. Code §703.140(b)(1) et seq., the objection is sustained.


Having sustain Trustee’s objection to Debtor’s claimed exemption in the 2018 Tax refunds, the request for turnover of those tax refunds is granted.


TENTATIVE RULING



For the reasons stated above, the Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection to the claimed exemptions and TURNOVER 2018 Federal and State tax returns.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joseph F. Mark Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-10124


Bobbi Harris


Chapter 7


#3.00 Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH       

Docket 25

Tentative Ruling:


TENTATIVE RULING

11/20/2019

Opposition: None Service: Proper


The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $300.50


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Bobbi Harris Represented By

M. Wayne Tucker

Trustee(s):

Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19345


Michael Christopher Oropallo and Lauren Elaine Oropallo


Chapter 13


#3.10 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 2015 Ford Explorer


MOVANT: MICHAEL AND LAUREN OROPALLO


From: 11/19/19 EH   

Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

11/19/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


Debtor had a bankruptcy case dismissed in the previous calendar year after failing to perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the Court. Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc), the instant bankruptcy case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C), the Court requires "clear and convincing" evidence to rebut the presumption of bad faith. Here, Debtor has not provided clear evidence regarding a change in circumstance, only asserting that their income and expenses have "stabilized." More importantly, the secured creditor was not served pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(h) as required by the Court’s procedures for hearings on motions to continue the automatic stay. For all these reasons, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Christopher Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michael Christopher Oropallo and Lauren Elaine Oropallo


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Lauren Elaine Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Movant(s):

Michael Christopher Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Lauren Elaine Oropallo Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-27611


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01248 Revere Financial Corporation, a California corpora v. Roger, MD


#4.00 CONT Status Conference RE: Amended Complaint (First) by Revere Financial Corporation and Jerry Wang, as State-Court Appointed Receiver by Franklin R Fraley Jr on behalf of Revere Financial Corporation, a California corporation against Revere Financial Corporation, a California corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-8)


From: 4/25/18, 6/13/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 7/31/19, 9/11/19


EH   


Docket 82

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/29/20 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Jay Roger Represented By Summer M Shaw Marc C Forsythe

Defendant(s):

Douglas J Roger MD Represented By Summer M Shaw Thomas J Eastmond Marc C Forsythe

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation, a Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Jerry Wang Represented By

Franklin R Fraley Jr Anthony J Napolitano

2:00 PM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Douglas Jay Roger


Chapter 7

Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Arjun Sivakumar Carmela Pagay

Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01303 Cisneros v. AMERICAN EXPRESS


#5.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01303. Complaint by A. Cisneros against AMERICAN EXPRESS. (Charge To Estate $350). For Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 12/30/15, 1/13/16, 3/23/16, 5/25/16, 6/29/16, 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 5/3/17 9/13/17, 12/13/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 6/11/18, 8/22/18, 11/28/18, 2/27/19, 5/29/19,

8/28/19


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/29/2020 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

AMERICAN EXPRESS Represented By Robert S Lampl Chad V Haes

Plaintiff(s):

A. Cisneros Represented By

D Edward Hays

2:00 PM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat

Chad V Haes


Chapter 7

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01307 Revere Financial Corporation v. OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a


#6.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01307. Complaint by A. Cisneros against OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC CORPORATION, a California corporation, UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP, a California corporation. (Charge To Estate $350). for Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 12/30/15, 2/24/16, 4/13/16, 6/22/16, 8/24/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 3/8/17, 7/12/17, 9/13/17, 11/15/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 7/25/18, 8/22/18, 10/31/18, 11/14/18,

12/12/18, 12/19/18, 3/27/19, 6/12/19, 7/31/19, Advanced 3/4/20 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/29/20 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

OIC MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Represented By

Misty A Perry Isaacson

LIBERTY ORTHOPEDIC Represented By

Misty Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

UNIVERSAL ORTHOPAEDIC Represented By

Misty Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson

Plaintiff(s):

Revere Financial Corporation Represented By Franklin R Fraley Jr

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:13-27344


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:15-01308 Cisneros v. BWI CONSULTING, LLC et al


#7.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:15-ap-01308. Complaint by A. Cisneros against BWI CONSULTING, LLC, Black and White, Inc., BLACK AND WHITE BILLING COMPANY, BLACK AND WHITE INK, MEHRAN

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. (Charge To Estate $350). for Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential and Fraudulent Transfers (with Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other))


From: 1/13/16, 3/23/16, 5/25/16, 7/27/16, 8/31/16, 11/2/16, 2/1/17, 5/3/17, 9/13/17, 12/13/17, 2/14/18, 5/16/18, 6/11/18, 8/22/18, 11/28/18, 2/27/19, 5/29/19, 8/28/19


EH   


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/29/20 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Represented By Summer M Shaw Michael S Kogan George Hanover

Defendant(s):

BWI CONSULTING, LLC Pro Se

Black and White, Inc. Pro Se

BLACK AND WHITE BILLING Pro Se

BLACK AND WHITE INK Pro Se

MEHRAN DEVELOPMENT Pro Se

2:00 PM

CONT...


Douglas J Roger, MD, Inc., A Professional Corporat


Chapter 7

Plaintiff(s):

A. Cisneros Represented By

D Edward Hays Chad V Haes

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Chad V Haes

D Edward Hays Franklin R Fraley Jr

2:00 PM

6:16-15813


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01138 Speier v. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC et al


#8.00 Motion for Default Judgment Under LBR 7055-1, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Jeff Converse


Also #9 EH   

Docket 76


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John E. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Defendant(s):

Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC Represented By

Charles Miller

Conestoga International Holdings, Represented By

Charles Miller

Conestoga Trust Represented By Charles Miller

Provident Trust Group, LLC Represented By Marshall J Hogan

De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Thomas Washburn Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Jasmin Yang David D Samani


Chapter 7

Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Jeff Converse Pro Se

Michael Woods Pro Se

Michael McDermott Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Ellen O. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Movant(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond

Plaintiff(s):

Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:16-15813


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01138 Speier v. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC et al


#9.00 Motion for Default Judgment Under LBR 7055-1, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Michael Woods


Also #8 EH   

Docket 77

Tentative Ruling:

11/20/19

BACKGROUND


On June 29, 2016, John E. Tackett and Ellen O. Tackett (collectively "Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. As part of their petition, Debtors were appointed Steven M. Speier, their ("Trustee"). The Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, et al (collectively "Defendants"), including Michael Woods ("Woods") and Jeff Converse ("Converse"), roughly two years later, June 20, 2018.


Debtors’ claim against Defendants arose from an allegedly unsuited investment. In 2012, Ellen O. Tackett ("Mrs. Tackett") inherited an interest in property located at 716 Bayonne Street, El Segundo, California (the "Property"), along with her sibling, Evelyn. Evelyn paid Mrs. Tackett, through a loan, $300,000 for her interest. $50,000 of the payment went to Debtors’ debts, home repairs, and other miscellaneous expenses, leaving $250,000.


In April 2012, Debtors meet Converse in Las Vegas at a weekend-long Amway convention. Debtors were acquainted with Converse from prior Amway related interactions. A conversation developed amongst the parties. Converse brought-up an opportunity to invest in life settlements with John Tackett ("Mr. Tackett"). Converse and

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

Mr. Tackett agreed to continue the conversation at a later date.

Later in the month, Converse met Debtors at a Panera Bread in Riverside, California. During the meeting, Converse stated he was a selling agent for Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC, ("Conestoga") and discussed Conestoga’s life settlement investment opportunities:


"[I]n a life settlement contract, the beneficiary under a life insurance policy sells his or her interest to a third party, who in turns becomes the beneficiary who will receive the insurance benefit when the insured dies. The purchaser effectively wagers that the insured will die soon enough that the total of the cash paid to acquire the policy, plus the premiums that must be paid to keep the policy in force, will be less than the ultimate death benefit, yielding a positive return." (Ellen O. Tackett Decl., ¶6; John E. Tackett Decl., ¶4.)


Converse stated several Amway Diamonds—Amway distributors who had achieved a certain level of success—were making life settlement investments. Converse then mentioned Woods, an Amway Diamond who resided in Texas, with whom Debtors were familiar with, was involved with Conestoga. Converse did qualify this investment opportunity by stating that it may not be suitable for Debtors and he would have to talk to his supervisors about their participation.


After two to five days later, Converse called the Debtors and informed them that they were qualified and approved by his "supervisors." Another meeting took place in late April or early May. At this meeting, Converse stated that his "supervisors" would prefer that Debtors invest $250,000 that Mrs.

Tackett’s received for her interest in the inherited Property. Debtors did not state how Converse was aware of such funds being available to them.


A third meeting was arranged. At this meeting, Debtors had questions about information presented to them in the prior meeting. Converse explained that the investment would be for the purchase of a percentage of each policy, and a portion of the fund would be held in a reserve account in case the insured outlived his or her life expectancy dates.


Converse stated that there was approximately five years of premium monies that would be held in an escrow amount on each policy. After the insured passed away, Converse told Debtors the money in the escrow account

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

would be returned to them or reinvested into other policies.

Another meeting was arranged for Debtors to sign the contract ("Life Settlement Agreement") and purchase interest in the life policies. When Converse arrived, he told the Debtors that he was rushing because he had booked another meeting too close in time with that of Debtors. Without thoroughly reviewing the Life Settlement Agreement, Debtors signed parts of the contract that were tagged in advance by Converse or another party and deposited $30,000 to Converse.


The contract indicated that Debtors became fractional owners of eight policies with premium ranging from 75 to 85.5 months. Since Converse stated that life expectancies for the insured were less than 55 months, Debtors were at ease with this margin. A fifth meeting took place where Debtors deposited

$220,000 with Converse.

In 2013, Mr. Tackett, employed as a probation officer, was injured in a ground defense training class. The injury, unfortunately serious, drastically reduced his ability to work. Mrs. Tackett, the sole caretaker of Mr. Tackett, was unable to substitute Mr. Tackett’s income. This led to Debtors filing for bankruptcy.


On January 16, 2017, Conestoga sent Debtors a notice, informing them that money in the reserve account had been depleted. Pursuant to the Life Settlement Agreement, for Debtors to maintain their interest in their life policies, they would have to contribute their pro-rate share of the premiums due. On February 13, 2017, Trustee’s counsel, being aware of this notice, notified Conestoga, through a letter, of the automatic stay and the consequences of violating it.


On February 20, 2017, Conestoga’s counsel communicated he had received the notice and proposed to buy Debtors’ interest. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to negotiate a settlement.


Since the initial notice given to Debtors about the premium call, eight of the nine policies, the insured had outlived his or her life expectancy. However, Debtors believe that the premium calls were premature. After reviewing the Life Settlement Agreement, Debtors, because Woods name appeared at the top of the coverage page under "Independent Contractor," believe Woods is the supervisor Converse alluded to. Trustee now files a motion asking for the court to grant a default judgment against Woods.

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7


PROCEDURAL HISTORY



Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Defendants on June 20, 2018, which was timely served. Defendants had until July 20, 2018 to file and serve a written response to the Trustee’s complaint. Defendants filed a response, asking for the court to dismiss the case, on July 30, 2019.


Trustee then filed a request for the clerk to enter a default judgment due to the untimely response of the Defendants. The clerk obliged, entering a default judgment against Defendants on August 8, 2018. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC; Conestoga International, LLC; and Conestoga Trust (collectively, "Conestoga Entities") disputed that the service was proper. On September 7, 2018, Trustee and Conestoga Entities agreed that the Trustee would set aside the default judgment if they accept service as proper. The stipulation agreement was granted, and Conestoga Entities had until September 28, 2018 to file their response.


Conestoga Entities filed an answer to the complaint on October 1, 2018 and asked for extending time to respond to the complaint. The motion was granted on October 12, 2018. Conestoga Entities did not file another answer. Roughly a year later, Trustee filed this motion, requesting a default judgment against Woods.


DISCUSSION



  1. Entry of Default



    FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55 states that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Local Rule 7055-1 provides further requirements relating to a motion for entry of default judgment, and those requirements have been substantially satisfied here.

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John E. Tackett


    Chapter 7


  2. Motion for Default Judgment



    1. Proper Service of Summons and Complaint


      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(b)(1) states, in part:


      1. ervice may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows..


        1. Upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession.


      Here, it appears that the motion for default judgment has been properly served.


    2. Complaint as True


      Upon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Almog v. Golden Summit Investors Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 12867972 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (stating that when reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability as true.).


  3. Jurisdiction

    2:00 PM

    CONT...


    John E. Tackett


    Chapter 7


    1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction



      This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C §157(b)(1)— Bankruptcy Judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11—and 28 U.S.C. §1334. Trustee has asserted a claim arising under title 11, a Chapter 7 voluntary petition, and the matter concerns the administration of an estate. U.S.C §157(b)(2)(A).


    2. Venue


      Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1409(a):

      "Except as otherwise provided in subsections (b) and (d), a proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 may be commenced in the district court in which such case is pending."

      Debtors’ lead bankruptcy case (16-15813) is currently pending in this Court.


    3. Personal Jurisdiction



      Personal Jurisdiction of an out-of-state defendant is appropriate if the relevant state’s long arm-statue permits the assertion of jurisdiction without violating federal due process. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. 374, F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir.

      2004). Due process requires that non-residents have certain "minimum contacts" with the forum state. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326. U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John E. Tackett

      In California the Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-prong test:

      1. the non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction in the forum or resident thereof, or perform some act by which it purposeful avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of forum’s laws;


      2. the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and


      3. the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with the fair play and substantial justice. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987).


        1. Purposeful Direction


          Chapter 7


          To determine if the first prong is satisfied, because the Trustee alleges fraud, a purposeful direction analysis must be used. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (stating that purposeful direction analysis is used in tort-related claims). A three part-test is utilized in the purposeful analysis—the Calder-effects test. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Under this test, the defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) causing harm that the defendant know is likely to be suffered in the forum state. Id.


          Accepting all the allegations as true in the Trustee complaint, the Court finds that Woods, involved with Conestoga in some manner, with Converse, defrauded Californians into purchasing investments unsuitable for them.


        2. Forum Related Activities


          The second prong requires that the Trustee’s claim shows that Debtors

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          John E. Tackett


          Chapter 7

          would not have been injured "but for" the defendant’s forum-related conduct. Myers v. Bennet Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001). Trustee claims that Debtors would not have suffered injury but for Converse’s conduct, who is believed to be an agent of Woods.


        3. Reasonableness


      The third prong requires that the court consider seven factors:

      1. The extent of defendant’s purposeful interjection;

      2. the burden on defendant in defending in the forum;

      3. the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of defendant’s state;

      4. the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the suit;

      5. the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;

      6. the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief; and


      7. the existence of an alternative forum. Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indust. AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1993).


      In engaging in this analysis, no one factor is dispositive. Id. at 1488. With respect to the first factor, Trustee has shown that Woods had intentional and continuous contact with California. Woods was listed as an "Independent Contractor" on the Life Settlement Agreement’s coverage page. (John E. Tackett Decl. ¶15). Woods was associated with Conestoga, which was selling securities in the State of California.


      As to the second factor, there is nothing in the record or that the Court can see that indicating that it would be inconvenient for Woods to litigate this lawsuit in California.


      Looking at the third factor, Trustee claims arise under federal law and California Law. Thus, there is no potential conflict with another state’s law or

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      regulation. Thus, this weighs in favor of the Trustee.

      Trustee is headquartered in California, and Debtors are residence of California. Californian courts, including this Court, have a strong interest in protecting California citizens and domestic businesses from the wrongful acts of a non-resident defendant.


      As to the fifth factor, most of the evidence and witnesses are based in Riverside, California. Converse met with Debtors multiple times at a Panera Bread in Riverside, where the contract was signed.


      Turning to the sixth factor, while it may not be as convenient for the Trustee to litigate this matter outside of California, there is nothing in the record suggesting that convenient and effective relief is unavailable in a different forum. Thus, this factor is neutral.


      Evaluating the seventh factor, the Court finds that this factor is neutral for the same reasons stated above. Thus, taking all the foregoing factors into consideration, the Court finds that personal jurisdiction over Woods in this action is appropriate.


  4. Analysis of Judgment by Default


To obtain a default judgment, a two-step process is required: "(1) entry of party’s default (normally by the clerk), and (2) entry of a default judgment[, which can be given by the Clerk if the sum is certain or by the Court in all other cases]". In re McGee, 359

B.R. 765 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006). The Trustee has admitted that the sum in this claim is certain, so such an entry of default by the Clerk could be appropriate. However, this motion has provided additional support for the calculation of damages.


The complaint includes fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of securities qualification requirements, and misrepresentation in the sale of securities. The Trustee asks to be awarded interest and punitive damages as well as the full invested amount,

$250,000. Before the Court can address the Trustee claims, it must determine if the pleadings support a finding of a principal-agent relationship between Woods and Converse since all the claims against Woods are based on the allegation that Converse is the agent of Woods

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett

  1. Agent

    A principal-agent relationship can be created by one of two ways:

    1. actual authority—"an agent acts with actual authority when, at the time of taking action that has legal consequences for the principal, the agent reasonable believes, in accordance with the principal’s manifestations to the agent, that the principal wishes the agent so to act—or


    2. apparent authority—"the power held by an agent…to affect a principal’s legal relationship with third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestation. Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 2.01 and 2.03.


Chapter 7


Because there is no declaration provided by Converse, the pleading does not provide support for actual authority. Nor does the complaint allege sufficient facts to establish an agency relationship.


However, there may be evidence of apparent authority. "Apparent authority ‘must be established by proof of something said or done by the principal on which [a third part] reasonably relied’; it ‘cannot be established merely by showing that [the purported agent] claimed authority or purported to exercise it.’" Pascal v. Agentra, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 179359, *10 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dist. Counsel of Iron Works, 124 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1997).


Examples of an establishment of apparent authority would be the "principal’s direct statement to the third party, directions to the agent to tell something to the third person, or the granting of permission to the agent to perform acts and conduct negotiations under circumstances which create in him a reputation of authority in the area which the agent acts and negotiates." Id. No evidence of this kind was presented in the pleading. Thus, the Trustee does not plead sufficient facts to support an apparent authority that Woods is vicariously liable for the acts purportedly perpetrated by Converse.

Furthermore, evidence of ratification is also not present in the pleading.

Ratification is "the affirmance of a prior act done by another, whereby the act is given effect as if done by an agent acting with actual authority. Kristensen v. Credit Payment Serv., 879 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 2018). A principal can be found liable when he or

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

she ratifies an originally unauthorized tort. Id.

However, here the Debtors’ declaration simply reflects that Woods’ name appears on the cover page of the Life Settlement Agreement under "Independent Contractor Name." Nothing in the claim establishes such proof of a principal-agent relationship nor ratification of the agents authorized conduct.


TENTATIVE RULING



Thus, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion for default judgment.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

John E. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Defendant(s):

Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC Represented By

Charles Miller

Conestoga International Holdings, Represented By

Charles Miller

Conestoga Trust Represented By Charles Miller

Provident Trust Group, LLC Represented By Marshall J Hogan

De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

2:00 PM

CONT...


John E. Tackett


Chapter 7

Thomas Washburn Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

Jeff Converse Pro Se

Michael Woods Pro Se

Michael McDermott Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Ellen O. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Movant(s):

Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

Plaintiff(s):

Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

Thomas J Eastmond

2:00 PM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01174 Pringle Ch 7 Trustee v. Shenouda et al


#10.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01174. Complaint by John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee against Violete Shenouda, Anwar Wagdy. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Complaint: (1) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550; (2) To Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550; (3) To Avoid Transfer Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 544(a)(3); (4) To Preserve Transfers Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 551; (5) For Declaratory Relief; (6) For Imposition of Resulting Trust; (7) For Imposition of Constructive Trust; and (8) For Attorneys' Fees and Costs Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)),(72 (Injunctive relief - other)),(91 (Declaratory judgment)),(14 (Recovery of money/property - other)) (Goodrich, David)


From: 10/31/18, 2/27/19, 6/12/19, 9/18/19


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Defendant(s):

Violete Shenouda Represented By John J Lewis

Anwar Wagdy Represented By John J Lewis

2:00 PM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous


Chapter 7

Joint Debtor(s):

Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

Plaintiff(s):

John P Pringle Ch 7 Trustee Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

Trustee(s):

John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

2:00 PM

6:18-10939


Vance Zachary Johnson


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:18-01106 Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v. Johnson


#11.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01106. Complaint by Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC against Vance Zachary Johnson. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury))


From: 7/10/18, 2/20/19, 4/24/19, 7/3/19, 7/17/19, 8/21/19


EH       


Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/29/20 AT 2:00 P.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe

Defendant(s):

Vance Zachary Johnson Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

Plaintiff(s):

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Monica Y Kim

2:00 PM

6:19-13174


Daniel Benjamin Verwers


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01107 Blumhardt v. Verwers


#12.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01107. Complaint by Daniel John Blumhardt against Daniel Benjamin Verwers. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Sarmiento, Louis)


From: 9/18/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: ADVERSARY DISMISSED 9/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Daniel Benjamin Verwers Represented By Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Daniel John Blumhardt Represented By Louis J Sarmiento Denis S Kenny

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-16505


Jesse Joseph Shelby


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:19-01126 Shelby v. SOFI LENDING CORP.


#13.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01126. Complaint by Jesse Joseph Shelby against SOFI LENDING CORP.. (Charge To Estate - $350.00). Nature of Suit: (63 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(8), student loan)) (Kingston, Christine)


EH   


Docket 1


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jesse Joseph Shelby Represented By Steven A Alpert

Defendant(s):

SOFI LENDING CORP. Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Tina Marie Shelby Represented By Steven A Alpert

Plaintiff(s):

Jesse Joseph Shelby Represented By Christine A Kingston

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-14075


Stephanie Lobato


Chapter 13


#1.00 Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephanie Lobato Represented By William Radcliffe

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-17578


Kendra Susan Lewkow


Chapter 13


#2.00 Order To Show Cause re Debtor's certification of compliance under 11 U.S.C. Section 1328(a) and Notice of application for entry of discharge


EH   


Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Kendra Susan Lewkow Represented By Morton J Grabel

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20737


Alfredo N Adriano


Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Order to show cause why Alon Darvish should not be sanctioned


CASE DISMISSED 3/14/19


From: 8/22/19, 9/19/19 EH   

Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Alfredo N Adriano Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16658


Stephanie McCravey Cooper


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/31/19, 11/7/19

EH    


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Stephanie McCravey Cooper Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16941


Latacia D Sanders


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/31/19

EH    


Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Latacia D Sanders Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17454


Andrea A Duncan


Chapter 13


#6.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 18


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Andrea A Duncan Represented By Marc A Goldbach

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17456


Michael Tyrone Lee and Marilyn Pearl Lee


Chapter 13


#7.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/13/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael Tyrone Lee Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Marilyn Pearl Lee Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17484


Jorel Esteban Zambrano and Sandy Rose Zambrano


Chapter 13


#8.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jorel Esteban Zambrano Represented By Carey C Pickford

Joint Debtor(s):

Sandy Rose Zambrano Represented By Carey C Pickford

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17489


David Aaron Graves and Kendra Clairice Graves


Chapter 13


#9.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

David Aaron Graves Represented By Carey C Pickford

Joint Debtor(s):

Kendra Clairice Graves Represented By Carey C Pickford

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17503


Robbie L Marshall


Chapter 13


#10.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/16/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robbie L Marshall Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17527


Michael Lewis Jackson and Samantha Kim Jackson


Chapter 13


#11.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michael Lewis Jackson Represented By Anthony B Vigil

Joint Debtor(s):

Samantha Kim Jackson Represented By Anthony B Vigil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17528


Kevin Lee Gibbons


Chapter 13


#12.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Kevin Lee Gibbons Represented By Anthony B Vigil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17554


Doralene C Weitz


Chapter 13


#13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Doralene C Weitz Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17558


Jose Luis Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/24/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Luis Rodriguez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17563


Felix R. Ortiz Jr.


Chapter 13


#15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Felix R. Ortiz Jr. Represented By William E Windham

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17651


Stephanie Brown


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/17/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephanie Brown Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17711


Deborah Sue Burton


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/17/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Deborah Sue Burton Represented By

Shawn Anthony Doan

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17725


Michelle R. Rayner


Chapter 13


#18.00 Motion for Order Determining Value of Collateral Also #19

EH   


Docket 20

Tentative Ruling:

11/21/19

BACKGROUND


On August 30, 2019, Michelle Rayner ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Among the assets of the estate is a couch (the "Property"). Pursuant to Schedule D, Genesis Credit ("Creditor") holds a security interest in the Property..


On July 19, 2019, Debtor filed a motion to value the Property. Debtor asserts that the Property should be valued at $540.


DISCUSSION



One of the benefits of filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy is that under § 506(a) the debtor can bifurcate a secured, unavoidable debt, with one part representing the amount of the value of the collateral, and the deficiency being treated as an unsecured claim. See In re Penrod, 636 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011).

11:00 AM

CONT...


Michelle R. Rayner


Chapter 13


Presently, the Ninth Circuit has not established a uniform method for valuations. See In re Ayres, 2010 WL 652825 at *5 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases detailing vehicle valuation and describing the state of the law in the Ninth Circuit). In In re Morales, however, which this Court has previously cited with approval, it was determined that value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or

N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2008).


According to the court in In re Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales at 46.


Here, Debtor has provided a Splitwise report identifying value of the Property. The Splitwise report states the following: "This number is not based on market prices, but on depreciation, which we believe is a better basis for fairness. This number is NOT a professional estimate, and is intended primarily for roommates buying and selling shared furniture." Pursuant to the caselaw cited above, the Court requires evidence of the Property’s retail value, and adequate evidence to justify any deviations therefrom. The Splitwise report, by its own description, does not meet that standard.


Tentative Ruling:


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Michelle R. Rayner


Chapter 13

Michelle R. Rayner Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Movant(s):

Michelle R. Rayner Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17725


Michelle R. Rayner


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan


Also #18 EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michelle R. Rayner Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17775


Floretta Love


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Floretta Love Represented By

Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17785


Harinder Heera


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Harinder Heera Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17805


Charles R. Thierry


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Charles R. Thierry Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17818


Martha Calleros


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Martha Calleros Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17838


Albert E. Abdou


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Albert E. Abdou Represented By Keith Q Nguyen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17843


Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam


Chapter 7


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 10

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Zakiyyah Johnson-Salaam Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17846


Christopher Lee Sumners


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher Lee Sumners Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17860


Gary L Brown and Charline R Brown


Chapter 7


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE CONVERTED TO CH 7 ON 9/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary L Brown Represented By Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Charline R Brown Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17957


Maria Luisa Barrera and Armando Ibarra Barrera, Sr.


Chapter 13


#28.00 Notice of Motion and Motion For Order Compelling Attorney to File Disclosure Of Compensation Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. 329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016


EH    


Docket 16

Tentative Ruling:

11/21/19

BACKGROUND


On September 10, 2019, Maria & Armando Barrera ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On September 30, 2019, Debtors’ case was dismissed for failure to file case commencement documents.


On October 11, 2019, UST filed a motion for an order compelling attorney to file disclosure of compensation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329. On October 14, 2019, Debtor’s attorney, Nathan Fransen ("Counsel"), filed the disclosure of compensation. Counsel also filed a declaration in response to UST’s motion, stating that the failure to file the disclosure of compensation was an oversight.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 329(a) states:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Maria Luisa Barrera and Armando Ibarra Barrera, Sr.


Chapter 13


Any attorney representing a debtor in a case under this title, or in connection with such a case, whether or not such attorney applies for compensation under this title, shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid, if such payment or agreement was made after one year before the date of the filing of the petition, for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the source of such compensation.


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2016(b) provides further details regarding the requirements imposed by § 329.


Here, Counsel has filed the required disclosure of compensation. The Court will retain jurisdiction over any matter relating to § 329 to allow UST to review the filed disclosure of compensation.


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT and retain jurisdiction over any matter related to § 329.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maria Luisa Barrera Represented By Nathan Fransen

11:00 AM

CONT...


Maria Luisa Barrera and Armando Ibarra Barrera, Sr.


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Armando Ibarra Barrera Sr. Represented By Nathan Fransen

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

Abram Feuerstein esq

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18089


Edwin Leonel Barco and Juana De Jesus Marin


Chapter 13


#29.00 Motion to Avoid Junior Lien with HSBC Bank USA, National Association EH       

Docket 16

Tentative Ruling: 11/21/19

Service: Proper Opposition: None


Notice appearing proper, no opposition having been filed, and Movant having established that the amount owing on the first deed of trust exceeds the fair market value of the subject property, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, AVOIDING the junior lien of HSBC Bank, USA, National Association as Trustee, upon receipt of a Chapter 13 discharge.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Edwin Leonel Barco Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Joint Debtor(s):

Juana De Jesus Marin Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Movant(s):

Edwin Leonel Barco Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Edwin Leonel Barco and Juana De Jesus Marin

Jaime A Cuevas Jr.


Chapter 13

Juana De Jesus Marin Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr. Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18241


Rhonda Kline


Chapter 13


#30.00 Notice of Motion and Motion For Order Compelling Attorney to File Disclosure Of Compensation Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. 329 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016


EH       


Docket 15

Tentative Ruling:

11/21/19

BACKGROUND


On September 19, 2019, Rhonda Kline ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On September 25, 2019, the case was dismissed for failure to file the initial case commencement documents.


On October 11, 2019, UST filed a motion for an order compelling attorney to file disclosure of compensation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 329(a) states:


Any attorney representing a debtor in a case under this title, or in connection

11:00 AM

CONT...


Rhonda Kline


Chapter 13

with such a case, whether or not such attorney applies for compensation under this title, shall file with the court a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid, if such payment or agreement was made after one year before the date of the filing of the petition, for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or in connection with the case by such attorney, and the source of such compensation.


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 2016(b) provides further details regarding the requirements imposed by § 329. Here, Debtor’s counsel has failed to file the required disclosure of compensation. The Court has authority to enter an order directing the disclosure of such compensation, and will direct Debtor’s counsel to file the required disclosure. See, e.g., In re Shuma, 124 B.R. 668, 677 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1991).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, ordering Debtor’s counsel, Bruce Boice, to file the required statement of attorney compensation. Pending UST’s review of the disclosure of compensation, the Court will retain jurisdiction over matters related to 11 U.S.C. § 329.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rhonda Kline Represented By Bruce A Boice

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

Abram Feuerstein esq

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Rhonda Kline


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-24888


Jesus Padilla Simental


Chapter 13


#31.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 100


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jesus Padilla Simental Represented By Bryn C Deb

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-14835


Bennea Cynthia Travis


Chapter 13


#32.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19

EH   


Docket 106


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bennea Cynthia Travis Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-15314


Franklin Merl Thomas King


Chapter 13


#33.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case re Tax Returns/Refunds EH   

Docket 73


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Franklin Merl Thomas King Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-19432


Kirk Eugene Frantz and Mary Elizabeth Frantz


Chapter 13


#34.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 187

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kirk Eugene Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling

Joint Debtor(s):

Mary Elizabeth Frantz Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-16622


Xavier Roque Gutierrez and Sara Nicole Moran-Gutierrez


Chapter 13


#35.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 119

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Xavier Roque Gutierrez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Sara Nicole Moran-Gutierrez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-17765


Mary Jones


Chapter 13


#36.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 58


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mary Jones Represented By

Matthew D. Resnik

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-19890


Rick Gaeta Carreon


Chapter 13


#37.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 129


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rick Gaeta Carreon Represented By

Ramiro Flores Munoz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11131


Bruce Howard Ruggles and Ann Marie Ruggles


Chapter 13


#38.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 131


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Bruce Howard Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Ann Marie Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13069


Katrina Mojarro Ruiz


Chapter 13


#39.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 37

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/8/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Katrina Mojarro Ruiz Represented By Nancy Korompis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14157


Joe Wallace Brown and Yolanda Denise Moore


Chapter 13


#40.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joe Wallace Brown Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Yolanda Denise Moore Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14292


Lubna Shiraz Ahmed


Chapter 13


#41.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19, 10/31/19

EH   


Docket 91


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Lubna Shiraz Ahmed Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14469


Mario Timothy Velasquez and Susan Lorraine Velasquez


Chapter 13


#42.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 48


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mario Timothy Velasquez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Susan Lorraine Velasquez Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14650


Brian Eugene Anderson and Gina Marie Anderson


Chapter 13


#43.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Brian Eugene Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Gina Marie Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14789


Sadia Sohail


Chapter 13


#44.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 83

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 9/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sadia Sohail Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15343


Jose Gabriel Sahagun, Jr.


Chapter 13


#45.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19, 11/7/19

EH    


Docket 26

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/19/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Gabriel Sahagun Jr. Represented By Richard G Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15524


Thanaa Victor Fransis


Chapter 13


#46.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19

EH   


Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Thanaa Victor Fransis Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-16542


Mike A. Granados, Jr. and Carolynne Jeannette Granados


Chapter 13


#47.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mike A. Granados Jr. Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Carolynne Jeannette Granados Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld Gabriella Gonzales

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-19890


Katrina Renee McDowell


Chapter 13


#48.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 4/25/19; 6/27/19, 8/22/19, 9/19/19 EH   

Docket 57

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/10/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Katrina Renee McDowell Represented By Jenny L Doling

Movant(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-20652


Marian Amelia Pagano


Chapter 13


#49.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 43

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/28/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Marian Amelia Pagano Represented By David Lozano

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-11653


Richard Espinoza


Chapter 13


#50.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 46


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Richard Espinoza Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-13172


Michelle Cadena Quinn


Chapter 13


#51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 86


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michelle Cadena Quinn Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-14725


Percylyn Agustin Basa


Chapter 13


#52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 80


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Percylyn Agustin Basa Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-15192


Everett T Cain


Chapter 13


#53.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 49

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/20/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Everett T Cain Represented By April E Roberts

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16178


Eriberto A. Sandoval


Chapter 13


#54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 63


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eriberto A. Sandoval Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-16237


Miguel Santa Maria and Lilia Maldonado


Chapter 13


#55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Miguel Santa Maria Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Lilia Maldonado Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-18374


Mariama T Jobe


Chapter 13


#56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 53

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Mariama T Jobe Represented By Gary S Saunders

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-18415


Donna Denise Upton


Chapter 13


#57.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 46

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 10/29/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Donna Denise Upton Represented By Seema N Sood

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-19696


Corinthia A. Williams


Chapter 13


#58.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 65


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Corinthia A. Williams Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-20232


Diana Marie Perrone


Chapter 13


#59.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19, 11/7/19

EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Diana Marie Perrone Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10001


Jose Diaz and Betty Diaz


Chapter 13


#60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19

EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Diaz Represented By

Nima S Vokshori

Joint Debtor(s):

Betty Diaz Represented By

Nima S Vokshori

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10934


Jorge Ramirez and Evelia Ramirez


Chapter 13


#61.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19

EH   


Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jorge Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Evelia Ramirez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11023


Keary A. Harris and Kimberly H. Olson-Harris


Chapter 13


#62.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 28


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Keary A. Harris Represented By

Patricia M Ashcraft - SUSPENDED BK - Gregory Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Kimberly H. Olson-Harris Represented By

Patricia M Ashcraft - SUSPENDED BK - Gregory Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11103


Golda Y Williams


Chapter 13


#63.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 8/19/19, 11/7/19

EH   


Docket 25


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Golda Y Williams Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11281


Nadia Michelle Lipscomb


Chapter 13


#64.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nadia Michelle Lipscomb Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11911


Jorge Manuel Azmitia and Yoshiko Azmitia


Chapter 13


#65.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19

EH   


Docket 59


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jorge Manuel Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Joint Debtor(s):

Yoshiko Azmitia Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-14735


Trinen Arniese Pratt


Chapter 13


#66.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19

EH   


Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Trinen Arniese Pratt Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-15596


Eduardo Lomeli


Chapter 13


#67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 35


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Eduardo Lomeli Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-10496


Luis Fuentes Moreno


Chapter 13


#67.10 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 60


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Luis Fuentes Moreno Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-17556


Daniel Javier Garcia


Chapter 13


#67.20 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 79


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Daniel Javier Garcia Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10531


Kimberly A Hardcastle


Chapter 13


#67.30 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19, 11/7/19

EH   


Docket 33


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Kimberly A Hardcastle Represented By Jenny L Doling

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

1:00 PM

6:19-19422


Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella


Chapter 13


#68.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 32589 Winterberry Lane, Lake Elsinore, CA and as to all creditors.


MOVANT: EUGENIO GIUSEPPE MANNELLA


From: 11/12/19 EH   

Docket 7

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


11/12/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court has reviewed the motion. Notice was improper because Debtor fail to include Cottonwood Canyon Hills Community Association and served the listed creditors eighteen days before the hearing, violating the regular notice requirements pursuant to LBR 9013-1. Thus, the Court will CONTINUE the motion, so Debtor can properly serve all the creditors involved and give them ample time to respond to the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella Represented By Suzette Douglas

1:00 PM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella


Chapter 13

Eugenio Giuseppe Mannella Represented By Suzette Douglas Suzette Douglas

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se


Monday, November 25, 2019

Hearing Room

303


10:00 AM

6:17-13853


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01197 Itria Ventures, LLC v. Asif et al


#1.00 Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01197. Complaint by Itria Ventures, LLC against Malik Muhammad Asif, Zobia Asif. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Chekian, Michael)


EH   


Docket 1

Debtor(s):

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/17/20 AT 10:00 A.M.

Party Information

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By David T Egli

Zobia Asif Represented By

David T Egli

Joint Debtor(s):

Zobia Asif Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Itria Ventures, LLC Represented By Michael F Chekian

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey

10:00 AM

6:17-13853


Malik Muhammad Asif


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:17-01197 Itria Ventures, LLC v. Asif et al


#1.00 CONT Trial RE: [1] Adversary case 6:17-ap-01197. Complaint by Itria Ventures, LLC against Malik Muhammad Asif, Zobia Asif. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) (Chekian, Michael)


From: 11/25/19 EH   

Docket 1

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 3/17/20 AND 3/18/20 AT 10:00 A.M.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By Todd L Turoci

Defendant(s):

Malik Muhammad Asif Represented By David T Egli

Zobia Asif Represented By

David T Egli

Joint Debtor(s):

Zobia Asif Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Plaintiff(s):

Itria Ventures, LLC Represented By Michael F Chekian

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Represented By

10:00 AM

CONT...


Malik Muhammad Asif


Thomas H Casey


Chapter 7

12:00 PM

6:19-18669


Patrick Kojima


Chapter 7


#2.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 FORD EDGE, VIN 2FMPK3J82HBB61910


MOVANT: CAB WEST LLC


From: 11/19/19 EH   

Docket 24

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Patrick Kojima Represented By Edward J. Fetzer

Movant(s):

Cab West, LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

12:00 PM

6:19-19593

Jose Antonio Mele and Victoria Isabel Mele

Chapter 13


#3.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate: 6224 Stanton Ave., Highland, CA 92346


MOVANT: JOSE MELE & VICTORIA MELE


From: 11/19/19 EH   

Docket 10

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose Antonio Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

Joint Debtor(s):

Victoria Isabel Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

Movant(s):

Jose Antonio Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

Victoria Isabel Mele Represented By Chris A Mullen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se


Monday, December 2, 2019

Hearing Room

303


1:00 PM

6:18-10155


Jose De Jesus Hernandez


Chapter 11


#1.00 Motion For Sale of Property of the Estate under Section 363(b) - No Fee Debtors Motion For Order (1) Authorizing Sale Of Real Property (3095 Ocelot Circle, Corona, Ca 92882) (2) Confirming Sale To Third Party; (3) Determining That Buyer Is A Good Faith Purchaser


EH   


Docket 193

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jose De Jesus Hernandez Represented By

Eric Bensamochan

11:00 AM

6:19-19905

Stephanie Brown

Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations UNLAWFUL DETAINER RE: 2180 W. 48th St., San Bernardino, CA 92407


MOVANT: KENNY PARADA


CASE DISMISSED 11/26/19


EH   


Docket 7

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19

Service: Proper Opposition: None


As to the merits, cause exists to GRANT under 11 U.S.C § 362(d)(1), and ¶¶¶ 2, 5, and

6. The Court will DENY ¶ 4 as no evidence is presented in support of annulment.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Stephanie Brown Pro Se

Movant(s):

Kenny Parada Represented By William E Windham

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19823


David Anthony Meisland


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 26818 Montseratt Court, Murrieta, CA 92563


MOVANT: DAVID ANTHONY MEISLAND


EH       


Docket 11

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


12/3/19


Service: Improper Opposition: None


The Court has reviewed the motion. Service was improper pursuant to Fed. Rule Bankr. Procedure 7004. Moreover, the evidence presented to rebut the presumption the case was not filed in good faith is not clear or convincing as to any detail regarding specifics of Debtor’s change in income. Thus, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Anthony Meisland Represented By Marc A Duxbury

Movant(s):

David Anthony Meisland Represented By Marc A Duxbury

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


David Anthony Meisland


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19814


Jay Tony Klester


Chapter 13


#3.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 891 Sugar Pine Circle


MOVANT: JAY TONY KLESTER


EH   


Docket 11

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court has reviewed the motion: notice acceptable and no opposition has been filed. Reviewing Debtor’s prior dismissals, the Court notes that six out of the seven petitions filed by Debtor were dismissed because Debtor failed to submit required documents. In this case, Debtor is represented by counsel. Appearing that Debtor has provided sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(D)(i) that the case was not filed in good faith, the Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, IMPOSING the stay as to all creditors.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jay Tony Klester Represented By Yelena Gurevich

Movant(s):

Jay Tony Klester Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Jay Tony Klester


Yelena Gurevich


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19813


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 23856 Citrus Avenue, Perris CA 92570


MOVANT: FRANCISCO R PALACIOS


EH   


Docket 20

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


12/3/19


Service: Improper Opposition: None


Per the Court’s miscellaneous instructions, if a secured credit has filed a motion for relief from automatic stay in a prior case, this motion has to have been served on counsel who filed the relief from stay in the prior case. Not having done so, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Francisco R Palacios Represented By

David A Akintimoye

Movant(s):

Francisco R Palacios Represented By

David A Akintimoye

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Francisco R Palacios


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19776


Christopher Monroe and Aysheh Spicer


Chapter 13


#5.00 Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real property located at 2584 W Fairview Dr., Rialto, CA 92377


MOVANT: CHRISTOPHER MONROE AND AYSHEH SPICER


CASE DISMISSED 11/22/19


EH   


Docket 12

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


Debtors claim that their last case was dismissed because they were unaware of when their payment was due. This justification seems questionable, especially when Debtors were represented by counsel. Debtors, because of their failing in their prior petition, state they are now aware of when their plan payments will be due.


Furthermore, the Court is unable to opine on Debtors’ Chapter 13 plan, which purports to pay creditors in full, because the file is corrupt. Last, the declaration presented is made by Christopher Lee Summer, who is not a debtor in this case. Thus, it appears that Debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11

U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i) that the case was not filed in good faith. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Christopher Monroe and Aysheh Spicer


Chapter 13

Christopher Monroe Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Aysheh Spicer Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Christopher Monroe Represented By Paul Y Lee

Aysheh Spicer Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19359


Jesus Antonio Palomares and Claudia Heredia Palomares


Chapter 13


#6.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate re 8490 Bellmore St. Riverside CA 92509


MOVANT: JESUS ANTONIO PALOMARES


From: 11/12/19 EH   

Docket 8

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


11/12/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


Debtors claim that their last case was dismissed because they failed to check certain boxes. In the prior case, Debtors represented themselves. Debtors have decided to also represent themselves in this proceeding. Furthermore, Debtors have not stated any method or manner that will ensure the court such mistakes will not continue to happen. Thus, it appears that Debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(D)(i) that the case was not filed in good faith. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Antonio Palomares Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jesus Antonio Palomares and Claudia Heredia Palomares


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Claudia Heredia Palomares Pro Se

Movant(s):

Jesus Antonio Palomares Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19335


Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer


Chapter 13


#7.00 Amended Motion (related document(s): 17 Motion in Individual Case For Order Continuing Automatic Stay filed by Debtor Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer)


MOVANT: SANDRAEA LA'JEAN PLUMMER


EH   


Docket 20

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


12/3/19


Service: Improper Opposition: None


The Court has reviewed the motion. Notice was improper because Debtor fail to serve Lakeview Mortgage and Nissan Motor Acceptance pursuant to Fed. R. of Bankr.

Procedure 7004(b)(3). More importantly, the hearing was set thirty days after the filing of the case, so the motion must be denied pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B).


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer Represented By Cynthia A Dunning

Movant(s):

Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer Represented By Cynthia A Dunning

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...


Sandraea La 'Jean Plummer


Chapter 13

11:00 AM

6:19-18718


William Arthur Conn, Jr and Jennifer Jaques-Conn


Chapter 7


#8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 BMW X2 sDrive28i Sport Utility 4D


MOVANT: FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST


EH   


Docket 10

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

William Arthur Conn Jr Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Jennifer Jaques-Conn Pro Se

Movant(s):

Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By

Cheryl A Skigin

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


William Arthur Conn, Jr and Jennifer Jaques-Conn


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18639


David M. Gunty and Megan A. Gunty


Chapter 7


#9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3584 Nelson St., Riverside, CA 92506


MOVANT CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.


EH   


Docket 13

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


Movant to provide updated calculation of arrears. and parties to apprise the court on adequate protection discussions, if any.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David M. Gunty Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

Joint Debtor(s):

Megan A. Gunty Represented By Lazaro E Fernandez

Movant(s):

Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Represented By Christina J Khil

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


David M. Gunty and Megan A. Gunty


Chapter 7

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18380


Laura Marie Beauchamp


Chapter 7


#10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 6084 HOLLAND COURT, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92880


MOVANT: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


EH   


Docket 19

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Laura Marie Beauchamp Represented By Ronald W Ask

Movant(s):

The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a Represented By

Stephen T Hicklin

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...


Laura Marie Beauchamp


Chapter 7

11:00 AM

6:19-18310


LA Holding, LLC


Chapter 7


#11.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 433 Diamond Drive, Lake Elsinore, CA 92503


MOVANT: OKC VENTURES, LLC


EH   


Docket 24


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

LA Holding, LLC Represented By James R Felton

Jeremy H Rothstein

Movant(s):

OKC Ventures, LLC Represented By David A Tilem

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18212


Timothy Lyle Whiteman and Elizabeth Anne Whiteman


Chapter 7


#12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2015 Chevrolet Equinox, VIN: 2GNALBEK3F6357732


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.


EH   


Docket 11

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under ¶11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Timothy Lyle Whiteman Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth Anne Whiteman Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Timothy Lyle Whiteman and Elizabeth Anne Whiteman


Chapter 7

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Sheryl K Ith

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18154


Xavier Romero


Chapter 7


#13.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee, VIN: 1C4RJEAGXHC756880


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


EH   


Docket 10

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § §362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. DENY alternative request under paragraph 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Xavier Romero Represented By

W. Derek May

Movant(s):

Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By

Sheryl K Ith

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Xavier Romero


Chapter 7

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18003


Ruben Macias and Carmen Macias


Chapter 13


#14.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2016 Lexus RC 200T, VIN: JTHHA5BC9G5000224


MOVANT: SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC


EH   


Docket 22

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/2019


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2. GRANT relief from stay against co-debtor, 11 U.S.C § 1301. DENY alternative request under ¶11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ruben Macias Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Carmen Macias Represented By Dana Travis

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Ruben Macias and Carmen Macias


Chapter 13

Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Sheryl K Ith

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17702


Angelica Andrade Burgos


Chapter 7


#15.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: (2017 Chevrolet Cruze Vin # 1G1BE5SM1H7102619)


MOVANT: ALLY BANK


EH   


Docket 9

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Angelica Andrade Burgos Represented By Edgar P Lombera

Movant(s):

Ally Bank Represented By

Adam N Barasch

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Angelica Andrade Burgos


Chapter 7

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17393


Gabriel Perez and Janyn Perez


Chapter 7


#16.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 3464 Harrison Avenue Lake Elsinore, California 92530


MOVANT: CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY


From: 11/5/19 EH       

Docket 14


Tentative Ruling:

11/05/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Movant to confirm arrears have been cured. The Court also notes that, based upon the amended schedules of Debtor, filed October 21, 2019, the only evidence before the Court regarding the fair market value of the subject property indicates that there is a significant equity cushion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gabriel Perez Represented By Glen J Biondi

Joint Debtor(s):

Janyn Perez Represented By

Glen J Biondi

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Gabriel Perez and Janyn Perez


Chapter 7

California Housing Finance Agency Represented By

Anna Landa

Diana Torres-Brito

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-15963


Ramon H. Ventura, Jr. and Clementine Ventura


Chapter 13


#17.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 MERCEDES-BENZ C300W VIN 55SWF4JB1HU195912


MOVANT: DAIMLER TRUST


EH   


Docket 35

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶¶ 2 and 6. DENY ¶ 11 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ramon H. Ventura Jr. Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Joint Debtor(s):

Clementine Ventura Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Ramon H. Ventura, Jr. and Clementine Ventura


Chapter 13

Daimler Trust Represented By

Jennifer H Wang Sheryl K Ith

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14029


Cynthia Molina Gomez


Chapter 13


#18.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15584 NORTHWIND AVE., FONTANA, CA 92336


MOVANT: ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 38

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 11/27/19

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Cynthia Molina Gomez Represented By Joshua L Sternberg

Movant(s):

RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Represented By

Nathan F Smith Christina J Khil

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20176


Garry Kenneth Frazier


Chapter 13


#19.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 21851 Mohican Ave. Apple Valley CA 92307


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


From: 11/5/19 EH       

Docket 37


Tentative Ruling:

11/5/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes

Parties to apprise Court of status of arrears and adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Garry Kenneth Frazier Represented By John F Brady

Movant(s):

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Christina J Khil Dane W Exnowski

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-20070


Alexander J Perfinowicz and Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz


Chapter 13


#20.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 999 Pineridge Street, Upland, CA 91784


MOVANT: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


EH   


Docket 50

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: Debtor


Parties to apprise the court on adequate protection discussions, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alexander J Perfinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

Joint Debtor(s):

Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz Represented By Manfred Schroer

Movant(s):

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By

Nancy L Lee

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Alexander J Perfinowicz and Ingeborg Maria Pefinowicz


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17927


Ertun Reshat and Hale Reshat


Chapter 13


#21.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 32042 CABERNET PL., WILDOMAR, CA 92595


MOVANT: WEI MORTGAGE CORPORATION


EH       


Docket 45

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3. DENY alternative request under paragraph 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ertun Reshat Represented By

April E Roberts

Joint Debtor(s):

Hale Reshat Represented By

April E Roberts

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Ertun Reshat and Hale Reshat


Chapter 13

WEI Mortgage Corporation Represented By Mark S Krause

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17732


DeBora Debbie Walker


Chapter 13


#22.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 741 West Linn Point, San Jacinto, CA 92582


MOVANT: NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE LLC


From: 10/29/19 EH   

Docket 43

*** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 11/21/19

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

10/29/19


Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor

Parties to apprise the court on adequate protection discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

DeBora Debbie Walker Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

NATIONS DIRECT MORTGAGE, Represented By

Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


DeBora Debbie Walker


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-15239


Amanda E Curry and Matthew L Curry


Chapter 13


#23.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 7232 Hermosa Avenue, Redondo, CA 91701


MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB


EH   


Docket 60

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: Debtor

Parties to apprise the court on adequate protection discussions, if any. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Amanda E Curry Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Joint Debtor(s):

Matthew L Curry Represented By Andy C Warshaw

Movant(s):

Wilmington Savings Fund Represented By Michelle R Ghidotti Lemuel Bryant Jaquez

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Amanda E Curry and Matthew L Curry


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13102


Luis Felipe Tejeda and Veronica Esther Tejeda


Chapter 13


#24.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 1329 Sugar Maple Lane, Perris, California 92571


MOVANT: U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


From: 10/29/19 EH   

Docket 36

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

10/29/19


Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor

Parties to discuss amount of arrears and status of adequate protection order discussions. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Luis Felipe Tejeda Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Veronica Esther Tejeda Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Luis Felipe Tejeda and Veronica Esther Tejeda

Sean C Ferry


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-11432


Armando Guzman


Chapter 13


#25.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 29351 Summerset Drive, Menifee, California, 92586 UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 362


MOVANT: FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION


EH   


Docket 53

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service is Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT requests under paragraph 2. DENY alternative request under paragraph 13 as moot.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Armando Guzman Represented By Daniel King

Movant(s):

Freedom Mortgage Corporation Represented By Christina J Khil Dane W Exnowski

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Armando Guzman


Ashley Popowitz John D Schlotter


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-20240


Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


Chapter 13


#26.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 15573 Kearny Drive, Adelanto, CA 92301


MOVANT: FMJM RWL IV TRUST 2017-1


From: 8/20/19, 10/1/19 EH   

Docket 42

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

8/20/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties to inform the Court as to the status of the loan modification. Otherwise, it appears that relief from the stay is warranted.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Natona Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Joint Debtor(s):

Tameiko Smith Represented By Natalie A Alvarado

Movant(s):

FMJM RWL IV Trust 2017-1 Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Natona Smith and Tameiko Smith


Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle Christopher Giacinto


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-15647


Omar Enrique Lopez


Chapter 13


#27.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 23502 Wooden Horse Trail, Murrieta, CA 92562-4721


MOVANT: EAGLE HOME MORTGAGE LLC


From: 8/20/19, 10/1/19 EH       

Docket 53

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

8/20/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: Yes


Parties are to inform the Court as to the status of adequate protection negotiations. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Omar Enrique Lopez Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Eagle Home Mortgage,LLC Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Omar Enrique Lopez


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18981


Randolph E Marrujo


Chapter 7


#27.10 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 9800 South 5th Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90305


MOVANT: U.S. BANK TRUST N.A.


EH   


Docket 8


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Randolph E Marrujo Pro Se

Movant(s):

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Represented By

Christina J Khil

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:19-19930


Enrique Garcia and Flavia C Garcia


Chapter 11


#28.00 Order To Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To File/Execute The Following Document: For Individual Chapter 11 cases: List Of Creditors Who Have The 20 Largest Unsecured Claims Against You And Are Not Insiders (Official Form 104)

(Amended Document Filed 11/21/19)


EH   


Docket 23


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Enrique Garcia Represented By Michael R Totaro

Joint Debtor(s):

Flavia C Garcia Represented By Michael R Totaro

2:00 PM

6:19-13127


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


#29.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2014 Ford E450; VIN# 1FDXE4FS8EDB19703


MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


Also #30 EH   

Docket 197

Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

12/3/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 12.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

Randall P Mroczynski

2:00 PM

CONT...


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:19-13127


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


#30.00 Motion for Authorization to Use Cash Collateral and Provide Adequate Protection Also #29

EH   


Docket 199


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

10:00 AM

6:19-17523


Anna Maria Cabrera


Chapter 7


#1.00 CONT Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Ally Financial re: 2012 Chevrolet Cruze


From: 11/13/19 EH       

Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Anna Maria Cabrera Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

10:00 AM

6:19-16453


Louis R Gonzales and Nicole A Gonzales


Chapter 7


#2.00 CONT Pro se Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation re 2016 Toyota Sienna


From: 11/13/19 EH   

Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Louis R Gonzales Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Nicole A Gonzales Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-10240


Ariel A. Flores


Chapter 7


#3.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 75


Tentative Ruling:

12/4/19

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 1,850 Trustee Expenses: $ 905.48


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ariel A. Flores Represented By Stefan R Pancer

Trustee(s):

Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-17730


Sally Jeanne Way


Chapter 7


#4.00 Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH       

Docket 73


Tentative Ruling:

12/4/19

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The applications for compensation of the Trustee, Counsel for the Trustee, and Accountant for the Trustee have been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 6,100 Trustee Expenses: $ 154.30


Attorney Fees: $ 16,542 Attorney Costs: $ 769.61


Accountant Fees: $1,596 Accountant Costs: $266.90


Court Costs: $350.00


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sally Jeanne Way Represented By

11:00 AM

CONT...


Trustee(s):


Sally Jeanne Way


Summer M Shaw


Chapter 7

Charles W Daff (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Brandon J Iskander

11:00 AM

6:19-12454


Arley Antonio Atehortua


Chapter 7


#5.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 22


Tentative Ruling:

12/4/19

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 601.25 Trustee Expenses: $ 115.75


APPEARANCES WAIVED. If written or oral opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued. Trustee to lodge order within 7 days.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Arley Antonio Atehortua Represented By Alon Darvish

Trustee(s):

Robert Whitmore (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-18893


Gary Lee Braun and Michele Diane Braun


Chapter 7


#6.00 Notice of Trustee's Final Report and Applications for Compensation EH   

Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

12/4/19

No opposition has been filed. Service was Proper.


The application for compensation of the Trustee has been set for hearing on the notice required by LBR 2016-1. Pursuant to the Trustee's Final Report and the applications of the associated professionals, the Court is inclined to APPROVE the following administrative expenses:


Trustee Fees: $ 1,844.80


The Court notes that Trustee has not submitted any itemization or other evidence to support the expenses and requested and, as such, the Court is not inclined to approve the requested expenses.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary Lee Braun Represented By Daniel King

Joint Debtor(s):

Michele Diane Braun Represented By Daniel King

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Gary Lee Braun and Michele Diane Braun


Chapter 7

Charles W Daff (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17012


Robert Dupper, Jr. and Amber Duncan


Chapter 7


#7.00 United States Trustee's Motion to Extend Dismissal and Discharge deadlines EH   

Docket 17

Tentative Ruling:

12/4/2019

BACKGROUND


On August 9, 2019, Robert Dupper & Amber Duncan ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. The meeting of creditors was originally set for September 9, 2019. On November 8, 2019, UST filed a motion for an extension of the deadlines to file a motion to dismiss the complaint or file an objection to discharge. UST’s motion asserts that:


On the day the discharge and dismissal deadlines expired, the auditors notified the U.S. Trustee that they had discovered a material misstatement – that the Debtors failed to disclose a money market account containing approximately $21,400.


The U.S. Trustee wishes to continue the discharge and dismissal deadlines so that he can engage in discovery and evaluate whether grounds exist to deny the Debtors’ discharge or to dismiss the bankruptcy case.


[Dkt. No. 17, pg. 3]. The Court notes that on November 22, 2019, Tronconi Segarra

11:00 AM

CONT...


Robert Dupper, Jr. and Amber Duncan


Chapter 7

and Associates LLP filed a report of audit with no material misstatement identified.


DISCUSSION



FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 1017(e)(1) states:


Except as otherwise provided in § 704(b)(2), a motion to dismiss a case for abuse under § 707(b) or (c) may be filed only within 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a), unless, on request filed before the time has expired, the court for cause extends the time for filing the motion to dismiss.


FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(a) states:


In a chapter 7 case, a complaint, or a motion under § 727(a)(8) or

(9) of the Code, objecting to the debtor’s discharge shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a). In a chapter 11 case, the complaint shall be filed no later than the first date set for the hearing on confirmation. In a chapter 13 case, a motion objecting to the debtor’s discharge under

§ 1328(f) shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors under § 341(a). At least 28 days’ notice of the time so fixed shall be given to the United States trustee and all creditors as provided in Rule 2002(f) and (k) and to the trustee and the trustee’s attorney.


And FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 4004(b) states:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Robert Dupper, Jr. and Amber Duncan

  1. On motion of any party in interest, after notice and hearing, the court may for cause extend the time to object to discharge. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2), the motion shall be filed before the time has expired.

  2. A motion to extent the time to object to discharge may be filed after the time for objection has expired and before discharge is granted if

    1. the objection is based on facts that, if learned after the discharge, would provide a basis for revocation under § 727(d) of the Code, and

    2. the movant did not have knowledge of those facts in time to permit an objection. The motion shall be filed promptly after the movant discovers the facts on which the objection is based.


Chapter 7



Here, the Court notes that the stated grounds justifying an extension of the deadlines recited above, that Debtors made a material misstatement in their bankruptcy documents, appears to either be contradicted or superseded by the report of audit filed on November 22, 2019.


TENTATIVE RULING



UST to apprise the Court of the status of the investigation.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Robert Dupper Jr. Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Amber Duncan Represented By Paul Y Lee

11:00 AM

CONT...

Movant(s):


Robert Dupper, Jr. and Amber Duncan


Chapter 7

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By Everett L Green

Trustee(s):

Todd A. Frealy (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:17-20092


Mark Bastorous and Bernadette Shenouda


Chapter 7


#8.00 Motion to Extend Time Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion for Order Extending Time to File Actions Under 11 U.S.C. § 546(a)


EH   


Docket 94

Tentative Ruling:

12/4/19

BACKGROUND


On December 8, 2017, Mark Bastorous and Bernadette Shenouda ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. Debtors’ statement of financial affairs lists thirty-seven business entities related to Debtors.


On November 1, 2019, Trustee filed a motion for an order extending the time to file actions under 11 U.S.C. § 546(a). Trustee asserts that the financial affairs, including certain transfers, are still under investigation. Trustee requests that the deadline to file avoidance actions be extended to March 6, 2020. On November 19, 2019, the Court entered an order setting the matter for hearing.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 546(a) states:

11:00 AM

CONT...


Mark Bastorous and Bernadette Shenouda

  1. An action or proceeding under section 544, 545, 547, 548, or 553 of this title may not be commenced after the earlier of –

    1. the later of –

      1. 2 years after the entry of the order for relief; or

      2. 1 year after the appointment or election of the first trustee under section 702, 1104, 1163, 1202, or 1302 of this title if such appointment or such election occurs before the expiration of the period specified in subparagraph (A); or

    2. the time the case is closed or dismissed.


      Chapter 7


      Here, application of § 546(a) would result in a deadline to file avoidance actions of December 8, 2019 – two years from the date Debtors filed their petition.


      Trustee asserts that "[w]hen an extension of time is sought before the § 546 time period expires, the request is governed by the ‘for cause’ analysis under Rule 9006(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure." The Court disagrees that FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9006(b) applies to the request under consideration. Rule 9006(b) applies to situations where "an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified period by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court." Here, the deadline to file avoidance actions is not imposed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or by order of this Court, but, rather, by the Bankruptcy Code itself. Therefore, Rule 9006(b) does not apply to this request.


      The majority of courts have held that because the deadline imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 546(a) is not jurisdictional in nature, it may be waived by a defendant, either through failure to raise the defense or through stipulation. See, e.g., In re Pugh, 158 F.3d 530, 533-34 (5th Cir. 1998) (Section 546(a) statute of limitations is subject to waiver).


      Additionally, the section 546(a) deadline is subject to equitable tolling. See, e.g., In re Milby, 875 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 2017). As the Ninth Circuit stated in In re Milby:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Mark Bastorous and Bernadette Shenouda


      Chapter 7


      The doctrine of equitable tolling is read into every federal statute of limitation. Indeed, we have previously applied equitable tolling to § 546(a)(1). A litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.


      Id. at 1232 (quotations and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit standard outlined in Milby supports this Court’s conclusion that Rule 9006(b) is not applicable to the instant situation because if a simple for cause standard was applicable, then the more rigorous standard for equitable tolling would be superfluous.


      Here, Trustee has not provided any legal analysis or evidence to support a holding that equitable tolling is appropriate in the instant situation.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to DENY the motion or CONTINUE the matter for Trustee to file a supplemental brief and additional evidence.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Mark Bastorous Represented By Thomas F Nowland

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Mark Bastorous and Bernadette Shenouda


      Chapter 7

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Bernadette Shenouda Represented By Thomas F Nowland

      Movant(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

      Trustee(s):

      John P Pringle (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Reem J Bello

      11:00 AM

      6:17-19042


      Trending Up


      Chapter 7


      #9.00 Motion to Disallow Claim No 3-1 of Jessica Ramirez EH   

      Docket 25

      Tentative Ruling:

      12/4/19

      BACKGROUND:


      On October 30, 2017, Trending Up ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On February 9, 2018, Trustee filed a notice of assets, and the claims bar date was set for May 15, 2018, although the Court notes that the only creditor listed in the schedules was Wells Fargo Bank.


      On June 21, 2018, Jessica Ramirez ("Creditor") filed a proof of claim for a priority claim in the amount of $5,520.97 ("Claim 3"). On October 25, 2019, Trustee filed an objection to Claim 3, arguing that the claim does not contain adequate supporting information. Alternatively, Trustee argues that Claim 3 should be subordinated to timely filed claims.


      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trending Up


      Chapter 7

      Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:


      Addressing Trustee’s alternative argument, the Court notes Trustee appears to miss 11

      U.S.C. § 726(a)(1) which allows priority claims to avoid subordination as long as the priority claim is filed before: (1) 10 days after the trustee’s final report is mailed to creditors; and (2) trustee commences final distribution. Therefore, if Trustee does not succeed in having the claim disallowed, it cannot be subordinated.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trending Up


      Chapter 7


      Turning to the adequacy of Claim 3, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(1) states the following: "Except for a claim governed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision, when a claim, or an interest in property of the debtor securing the claim, is based on a writing, a copy of the writing shall be filed with the proof of claim." And FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(f) implies that a proof of claim’s prima facie validity depends upon the claim being "executed and filed in accordance with these rules." Furthermore, as noted by the BAP: "If the creditor does not provide information or is unable to support its claim, then that in itself may raise an evidentiary basis to object to the unsupported aspects of the claim, or even a basis for evidentiary sanctions, thereby coming within Section 502(b)’s grounds to disallow the claim." In re Heath, 331 B.R. 424, 437 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005).


      Here, Claim 3 simply contains a single, handwritten page which itemizes amounts Creditor asserts she is owed for: (1) wages; (2) wages; (3) liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194.2; and (4) additional wages accrued pursuant to Labor Code Section 203. Creditor does not provide any evidence: (a) detailing the calculation of the amounts requested; or (b) justifying her entitlement to the amounts requested. For those reasons, and noting that Claim 3 is not entitled to prima facie validity, the Court finds it appropriate to disallow the claim.


      Finally, the Court deems Creditors’ failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 3 in its entirety.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Trending Up


      Chapter 7


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Trending Up Represented By

      Daniel King

      Movant(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Larry D Simons (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:19-18878


      Suzanne Joyce Vargo-Wagner


      Chapter 7


      #10.00 CONT Emergency Motion To Compel Restoration Of Utilities, To Enforce The Automatic Stay, For Actual And Punitive Damages, And Attorney Fees For Violation Of Automatic Stay


      From: 10/17/19 EH       

      Docket 11


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Suzanne Joyce Vargo-Wagner Pro Se

      Movant(s):

      Suzanne Joyce Vargo-Wagner Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      11:00 AM

      6:13-23186


      Richard C Cox, Jr


      Chapter 7


      #11.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Chapter 7 Trustees Motion for Order Disallowing Claim 17 of Richard and Donna Cox For Lack of Documentation; Or In the Alternative, Reducing Claim 17 to Reflect Amounts Paid by the Chapter 13 Trustee


      From: 11/13/19 EH   

      Docket 184

      *** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/26/19

      Tentative Ruling:

      11/13/19

      BACKGROUND:

      On August 1, 2013, Richard Cox ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. On September 26, 2013, Debtor’s Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. Debtor’s Chapter 13 was subsequently modified once. On June 30, 2016, Debtor’s case was converted to Chapter 7. On January 6, 2017, Debtor received a Chapter 7 discharge.

      On December 10, 2013, a proof of claim in the amount of $34,000 ("Claim 17") was filed by Debtor on behalf of Richard & Donna Cox ("Creditors"), who appear to be his parents. On October 7, 2019, the Chapter 7 Trustee filed an objection to Claim 17, arguing that the claim does not contain adequate supporting information. Trustee asserts that he propounded a request for additional information upon Creditors, but that, despite being given more than 100 days to respond, Creditors took no action.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...

      Richard C Cox, Jr

      Chapter 7

      APPLICABLE LAW:


      Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014 and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


      When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at 173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


      ANALYSIS:

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Richard C Cox, Jr


      Chapter 7


      As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that 11 U.S.C. § 501(c) states that: "If a creditor does not timely file a proof of such creditor’s claim, the debtor or the trustee may file a proof of such claim." As outlined in FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3004, the debtor and the trustee have thirty days once the claim filing deadline has passed to file a proof of claim on behalf of a creditor. Here, the deadline to file proofs of claims was December 11, 2013, yet Debtor filed Claim 17 on December 10, 2013. Therefore, Debtor technically filed the proof of claim prematurely.


      Turning to the merits of Claim 17, FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(c)(1) states the following: "Except for a claim governed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision, when a claim, or an interest in property of the debtor securing the claim, is based on a writing, a copy of the writing shall be filed with the proof of claim." And FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 3001(f) implies that a proof of claim’s prima facie validity depends upon the claim being "executed and filed in accordance with these rules." Therefore, Claim 17 in this case is not entitled to prima facie validity.


      Furthermore, as noted by the BAP: "If the creditor does not provide information or is unable to support its claim, then that in itself may raise an evidentiary basis to object to the unsupported aspects of the claim, or even a basis for evidentiary sanctions, thereby coming within Section 502(b)’s grounds to disallow the claim." In re Heath, 331 B.R. 424, 437 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005). Here, Claim 17 contains no supporting information whatsoever and, despite now being given more than four months to provide such information or amend or supplement Claim 17, Creditors have taken no action. For that reason, and noting that Claim 17 is not entitled to prima facie validity, the Court finds it appropriate to disallow the claim.


      Finally, the Court deems Creditors’ failure to oppose to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Richard C Cox, Jr


      Chapter 7



      TENTATIVE RULING


      The Court is inclined to SUSTAIN the objection, DISALLOWING Claim 17 in its entirety.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Richard C Cox Jr Represented By Summer M Shaw

      Movant(s):

      Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

      Trustee(s):

      Helen R. Frazer (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Brandon J Iskander Lynda T Bui

      11:00 AM

      6:11-19270


      Rene Antonio Ferrer and Lucia Margarita Lopez


      Chapter 7


      #12.00 Motion For Order Approving Settlement And Compromise Of Dispute By And Between Chapter 7 Trustee And American Medical Systems, Inc.


      EH   


      Docket 70

      Tentative Ruling:

      12/4/19

      BACKGROUND


      On March 22, 2011, Rene Ferrer & Lucia Lopez ("Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On July 27, 2011, Debtors received a discharge, and the case was subsequently closed.


      On August 11, 2017, Debtors filed a motion to reopen their case to ensure they "complied with all requirements of the bankruptcy code for reporting a potential asset." [Dkt. No. 15]. On June 8, 2018, the case was reopened.


      On June 29, 2018, Debtors filed amended schedules, disclosing a litigation claim against American Medical Systems, Inc. (the "Litigation Claim"), and exempting the Litigation Claim. On July 25, 2018, Trustee filed an objection to Debtors’ claimed exemption in the Litigation Claim. Because Debtors claimed exemptions under both CAL. CIV. P. Code § 703 and § 704, the Court sustained Trustee’s objection. On August 28, 2019, Debtors amended Schedule C again.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Rene Antonio Ferrer and Lucia Margarita Lopez


      Chapter 7

      On September 27, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to reconsider the order reopening the case, arguing that it was improper to allow Debtors to amend their schedules in the order reopening the case because Debtors had not met the standard required by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9006(b)(1). The same day, Trustee filed an objection to Debtors’ amended exemptions. After Debtors filed a late opposition to Trustee’s motion to reconsider, the Court continued the motion to reconsider and the objection to Debtors’ claimed exemptions. Ultimately, the Court granted Trustee’s motion to reconsider the order reopening the case, while striking Debtors amended schedules. [Dkt. No. 67].

      The Court’s order, entered December 26, 2018, permitted Debtors to file a motion for leave to amend their schedules, but no such motion was ever filed.


      On October 17, 2019, Trustee filed a motion to approve a compromise of the Litigation Claim for $60,000. On November 7, 2019, the Court set the matter for hearing, requiring Trustee to file a supplement regarding the estimated valuation of the Litigation Claim. On November 22, 2019, Trustee filed its supplement.


      DISCUSSION



      FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9019 provides that:


      On motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing, the court may approve a compromise or settlement. Notice shall be given to creditors, the United States trustee, the debtor, and indenture trustees as provided in Rule 2002 and to any other entity as the court may direct.


      The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have previously outlined the factors to be considered in approving a compromise pursuant to Rule 9019: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) the difficulties to be encountered in the matter of collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation; and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable expectations. See In re A&C Props., 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). The listed factors assist the Court in

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Rene Antonio Ferrer and Lucia Margarita Lopez


      Chapter 7

      determining "the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a proposed settlement agreement." Id.


      Regarding the first factor, Trustee asserts that probability of success in the litigation is uncertain. Trustee notes that "Debtors’ cooperation in future litigation is not assured," presumably because Debtors do not currently have an exemption in the Litigation Claim.


      Regarding the second factor, Trustee asserts that there may be difficulties in collection because American Medical Systems, Inc. may be facing financial difficulties.


      Regarding the third factor, Trustee asserts that it is likely that the Litigation Claim "would require vigorous and costly litigation in order to prosecute the matter to final judgment likely with the need for new personal injury counsel with experience in multidistrict litigation at great expense to the estate and its creditors.


      Regarding the fourth factor, Trustee asserts that the settlement of the Litigation Claim obtains maximum value for the bankruptcy estate. In support of this assertion, Trustee’s supplemental declaration indicates that the proposed compromise is approximately equal to the average amount obtained by class action plaintiffs in a settlement with Johnson & Johnson that also dealt with pelvic mesh implants, and is higher than the average amount obtained in a class action settlement with American Medical Systems Canada, Inc.


      Having reviewed Trustee’s motion and the supplement declaration, the Court concludes that Trustee has satisfied the A&C Properties test. Specifically, the Court notes that Trustee has supplied detailed and compelling evidence that the settlement of the Litigation Claim is in an amount equal to or greater than the average settlement amount for similar claims. Additionally, the complex nature of the lawsuit, the uncertain financial situation of American Medical Systems, Inc., and the possible non- cooperation of Debtors all weigh in favor of approval of the proposed compromise.

      11:00 AM

      CONT...


      Rene Antonio Ferrer and Lucia Margarita Lopez


      Chapter 7


      Additionally, the Court deems the absence of opposition to be consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, APPROVING the compromise.


      APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Rene Antonio Ferrer Represented By Christopher J Lauria

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Lucia Margarita Lopez Represented By Christopher J Lauria

      Movant(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Stephen Reider

      2:00 PM

      6:19-15677


      Bruce Vermille Anderson


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:19-01129 Roche v. Anderson


      #13.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01129. Complaint by Kevin Michael Roche against Bruce Vermile Anderson . (62 (Dischargeability - 523(a) (2), false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud))


      EH   


      Docket 1

      *** VACATED *** REASON: ALIAS SUMMONS ISSUED - STATUS CONFERENCE CONTINUED TO 1/15/20 AT 2:00 P.M.

      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -

      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Bruce Vermille Anderson Pro Se

      Defendant(s):

      Bruce Vermile Anderson Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Kevin Michael Roche Pro Se

      Trustee(s):

      Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:18-17820


      Maria Fabiola Marroquin


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:19-01131 Anderson v. Marroquin, Jr.


      #14.00 Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01131. Complaint by Karl T. Anderson against Roderico Marroquin Jr.. (Charge To Estate $350.00).

      Complaint for: (1) Avoidance and Recovery of Constrictive Fraudulent Transfers;

      (2) Avoidance and Recovery of Intentional Fraudulent Transfers; (3) Avoidance and Recovery of Property of the Bankruptcy Estate; and (4) Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Nature of Suit: (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Eastmond, Thomas)


      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Maria Fabiola Marroquin Represented By Mark A Mellor

      Defendant(s):

      Roderico Marroquin Jr. Represented By Alec L Harshey

      Plaintiff(s):

      Karl T. Anderson Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

      Trustee(s):

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe Thomas J Eastmond

      2:00 PM

      6:18-17663


      Stephen Richard Morales


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01242 Forniss et al v. Morales et al


      #15.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:18-ap-01242. Complaint by Steven John Forniss against Stephan Richard Morales, Diane Forniss Morales, Todd Turoci. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)),(67 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny)),(68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)) (Firman, Fritz)


      From: 3/6/19, 3/13/19, 5/22/19, 8/28/19 EH   

      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Stephen Richard Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Defendant(s):

      Stephan Richard Morales Pro Se

      Diane Forniss Morales Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Diane Forniss Morales Represented By Todd L Turoci

      Plaintiff(s):

      Stephen Forniss Represented By Fritz J Firman

      Alfonso Forniss Represented By

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Stephen Richard Morales


      Fritz J Firman


      Chapter 7

      Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:17-17749


      Joshua Cord Richardson


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:19-01114 Sonnenfeld v. Diaz et al


      #15.10 Motion for Default Judgment Also #16

      EH   


      Docket 24

      Tentative Ruling:

      12/4/19

      BACKGROUND

      On September 15, 2017, Cleo Sonnenfeld ("Creditor") filed a Chapter 7 involuntary petition against Joshua Richardson ("Debtor"). On November 8, 2017, an order for relief was entered after Debtor stipulated to its entry. That same day, the Court entered an order approving a stipulation between Creditor, Debtor, and HLE Law Group ("HLE") which avoided a deed of trust recorded on June 20, 2017, in favor of HLE and against certain real property located at 13710 Oakley Dr., Moreno Valley, CA 92555 (the "Property").

      On November 8, 2018, Trustee filed a motion to approve compromise; after two continuances, and the filing of a supplemental brief, the motion was granted pursuant to order entered January 3, 2019. The pertinent terms of the compromise are the following: (a) the Property is held in constructive trust for the benefit of Creditor, who holds a money judgment in the amount of $318,778.12; (b) Trustee is to sell the Property; (c) the funds otherwise payable on account of the avoided HLE lien constitute property of the estate; (d) the bankruptcy estate shall receive 30% of all sale proceeds in excess of $303,000 until such amount reaches $25,000; (e) Creditor to file an objection to Debtor’s homestead exemption; (f) avoidance actions are assigned to

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Joshua Cord Richardson

      Chapter 7

      Creditor, with Creditor to receive 70% of any recovery and the bankruptcy estate to receive the remaining 30%. On February 6, 2019, Creditor objected to Debtor’s claimed homestead exemption; the objection was sustained on March 1, 2019. On July 23, 2019, the Court entered an order directing turnover of the Property and, on July 29, 2019, the Court approved Trustee’s proposed sale of the Property. On September 18, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation between Trustee and Creditor relating to disbursement of the sale proceeds.


      On August 9, 2019, Creditor filed a complaint against Gabriela Nieto Diaz and Laguna Motors, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"; individually "Diaz" and "Laguna Motors") for (1) avoidance, recovery, and preservation of preferential transfer; (2) avoidance of intentional fraudulent transfer; (3) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfer; and (4) recovery and preservation of avoided intentional transfer, constructive fraudulent transfer, and preferential transfer. On October 18, 2019, default was entered against Defendants. On October 31, 2019, Creditor filed a motion for default judgment.


      Creditor’s complaint relates to a loan in the amount of $200,900 received in September 2016 (the "Funds"). Creditor asserts that, on September 22, 2016,

      $112,662.10 of the Funds were transferred to a bank account held by Diaz ("Transfer 1"), and that, on September 26, 2017, Diaz transferred $82,000 to Laguna Motors ("Transfer 2").


      DISCUSSION



      1. Entry of Default



        FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55 states that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Local Rule 7055-1 provides further requirements relating to a motion for entry of default judgment, and those

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        Joshua Cord Richardson


        Chapter 7

        requirements have been substantially satisfied here.


      2. Motion for Default Judgment



        1. Proper Service of Summons and Complaint


          FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(b)(1) states, in part:


          1. ervice may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows:


            1. Upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession.


          It is not exactly clear where Creditor obtained the service addresses used when serving the motion for default judgment. The Court notes that Creditor has utilized three different addresses for both Diaz and Laguna Motors, addressing the later notice to the attention of an officer or agent for service of process.


        2. Merits of Plaintiff’s claim


          Upon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Joshua Cord Richardson


          Chapter 7

          F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Almog v. Golden Summit Investors Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 12867972 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ("When reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability as true.").


          Here, the complaint includes four causes of action. A general problem with all four causes of action is that Creditor references $194,662.10 in transfers, which appears to be simply the sum of Transfer 1 and Transfer 2– Transfer 1 from Debtor to Diaz, and Transfer 2 from Diaz to Laguna Motors. Creditor’s attempt to add Transfer 1 and Transfer 2 appears to be an error – Transfer 2 was from Diaz to Laguna Motors, presumably using Loan Proceeds already transferred from Debtor to Diaz. Creditor appears to have realized this error when filing the motion for default judgment.


          Regarding the first cause of action, the complaint appears to gloss over material legal issues. First, Creditor "alleges that Preferential Transfers occurred within a year prior to Debtor’s Bankruptcy Case." This is clearly not true – Transfer 2 was made postpetition, and, as a result, is not within the scope of § 547. Additionally, Creditor alleges that Defendants were insiders as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) due to their "sufficiently close relationship with Debtor," yet Creditor has not provided the Court with any factual allegations sufficient to support that conclusion.


          Regarding avoidance of fraudulent transfer, the second and third claims for relief cite 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b) & 548 and CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 3439.04 and 3439.05. Section

          544(b) states that a trustee may avoid a transfer of an interest of the debtor that is voidable under applicable law. CAL. CODE CIV. P. § 3439.05 provides that a transfer is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer if the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and the debtor was or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. Trustee’s complaint sufficiently alleges that Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value for Transfer 1, that Debtor was insolvent as a result of Transfer 2, and that there is a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer.


          Regarding the fourth claim for relief, recovery of the avoidable transfer, 11 U.S.C. § 550 provides that transfers avoided under §§ 544 and 548 are recoverable from the

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          Joshua Cord Richardson


          Chapter 7

          initial transferee or from "any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transfer." Here, Creditor has adequately alleged that Diaz was the initial transferee of Transfer 1.


        3. Amount of Damages


      Here, Creditor’s motion for default judgment has reduced the requested damages to

      $112,662.10, and Debtor has provided a copy of a wire transfer establishing this amount.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion with respect to the Second through Fourth causes of action, as modified in the proposed judgment attached as Exhibit 6 to the motion (which reduces the amount requested to $112, 662.10), and DENY the motion with respect to the First Cause of Action.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

      Defendant(s):

      Gabriela Nieto Diaz Pro Se

      Laguna Motors, Inc. Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Movant(s):


      Joshua Cord Richardson


      Chapter 7

      Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By Laila Masud

      D Edward Hays

      Plaintiff(s):

      Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By Laila Masud

      D Edward Hays

      Trustee(s):

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

      2:00 PM

      6:17-17749


      Joshua Cord Richardson


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:19-01114 Sonnenfeld v. Diaz et al


      #16.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [1] Adversary case 6:19-ap-01114. Complaint by Cleo Sonnenfeld against Gabriela Nieto Diaz, Laguna Motors, Inc.. Recovery, and Preservation of Preferential Transfer; (2) Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; and (3) Avoidance, Recovery, and Preservation of Actual Fraudulent Transfer [11 U.S.C. Sections 544, 547, 548, 550 and 551; Cal. Civ. Code Sections 3439.04, 3439.05] (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) Nature of Suit: (14 (Recovery of money/property - other)),(12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)),(13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) (Hays, D)


      From: 10/16/19 Also #15.1

      EH   


      Docket 1


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Joshua Cord Richardson Represented By Amid Bahadori

      Defendant(s):

      Gabriela Nieto Diaz Pro Se

      Laguna Motors, Inc. Pro Se

      Plaintiff(s):

      Cleo Sonnenfeld Represented By Laila Masud

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Trustee(s):


      Joshua Cord Richardson


      D Edward Hays


      Chapter 7

      Todd A. Frealy (TR) Represented By Anthony A Friedman

      2:00 PM

      6:16-15813


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:18-01138 Speier v. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC et al


      #17.00 CONT Motion for Default Judgment Under LBR 7055-1, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Michael Woods


      From: 11/20/19 EH   

      Docket 77

      Tentative Ruling:

      11/20/19

      BACKGROUND


      On June 29, 2016, John E. Tackett and Ellen O. Tackett (collectively "Debtors") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. As part of their petition, Debtors were appointed Steven M. Speier, their ("Trustee"). The Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, et al (collectively "Defendants"), including Michael Woods ("Woods") and Jeff Converse ("Converse"), roughly two years later, June 20, 2018.


      Debtors’ claim against Defendants arose from an allegedly unsuited investment. In 2012, Ellen O. Tackett ("Mrs. Tackett") inherited an interest in property located at 716 Bayonne Street, El Segundo, California (the "Property"), along with her sibling, Evelyn. Evelyn paid Mrs. Tackett, through a loan, $300,000 for her interest. $50,000 of the payment went to Debtors’ debts, home repairs, and other miscellaneous expenses, leaving $250,000.


      In April 2012, Debtors meet Converse in Las Vegas at a weekend-long Amway convention. Debtors were acquainted with Converse from prior Amway related interactions. A conversation developed amongst the parties. Converse brought- up an opportunity to invest in life settlements with John Tackett ("Mr. Tackett").

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      Converse and Mr. Tackett agreed to continue the conversation at a later date.

      Later in the month, Converse met Debtors at a Panera Bread in Riverside, California. During the meeting, Converse stated he was a selling agent for Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC, ("Conestoga") and discussed Conestoga’s life settlement investment opportunities:


      "[I]n a life settlement contract, the beneficiary under a life insurance policy sells his or her interest to a third party, who in turns becomes the beneficiary who will receive the insurance benefit when the insured dies. The purchaser effectively wagers that the insured will die soon enough that the total of the cash paid to acquire the policy, plus the premiums that must be paid to keep the policy in force, will be less than the ultimate death benefit, yielding a positive return." (Ellen O. Tackett Decl., ¶6; John E. Tackett Decl., ¶4.)


      Converse stated several Amway Diamonds—Amway distributors who had achieved a certain level of success—were making life settlement investments. Converse then mentioned Woods, an Amway Diamond who resided in Texas, with whom Debtors were familiar with, was involved with Conestoga. Converse did qualify this investment opportunity by stating that it may not be suitable for Debtors and he would have to talk to his supervisors about their participation.


      After two to five days later, Converse called the Debtors and informed them that they were qualified and approved by his "supervisors." Another meeting took place in late April or early May. At this meeting, Converse stated that his "supervisors" would prefer that Debtors invest

      $250,000 that Mrs. Tackett’s received for her interest in the inherited Property. Debtors did not state how Converse was aware of such funds being available to them.


      A third meeting was arranged. At this meeting, Debtors had questions about information presented to them in the prior meeting. Converse explained that the investment would be for the purchase of a percentage of each policy, and a portion of the fund would be held in a reserve account in case the insured outlived his or her life expectancy dates.

      Converse stated that there was approximately five years of premium

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      monies that would be held in an escrow amount on each policy. After the insured passed away, Converse told Debtors the money in the escrow account would be returned to them or reinvested into other policies.


      Another meeting was arranged for Debtors to sign the contract ("Life Settlement Agreement") and purchase interest in the life policies. When Converse arrived, he told the Debtors that he was rushing because he had booked another meeting too close in time with that of Debtors. Without thoroughly reviewing the Life Settlement Agreement, Debtors signed parts of the contract that were tagged in advance by Converse or another party and deposited $30,000 to Converse.


      The contract indicated that Debtors became fractional owners of eight policies with premium ranging from 75 to 85.5 months. Since Converse stated that life expectancies for the insured were less than 55 months, Debtors were at ease with this margin. A fifth meeting took place where Debtors deposited $220,000 with Converse.


      In 2013, Mr. Tackett, employed as a probation officer, was injured in a ground defense training class. The injury, unfortunately serious, drastically reduced his ability to work. Mrs. Tackett, the sole caretaker of Mr. Tackett, was unable to substitute Mr. Tackett’s income. This led to Debtors filing for bankruptcy.


      On January 16, 2017, Conestoga sent Debtors a notice, informing them that money in the reserve account had been depleted. Pursuant to the Life Settlement Agreement, for Debtors to maintain their interest in their life policies, they would have to contribute their pro-rate share of the premiums due. On February 13, 2017, Trustee’s counsel, being aware of this notice, notified Conestoga, through a letter, of the automatic stay and the consequences of violating it.


      On February 20, 2017, Conestoga’s counsel communicated he had received the notice and proposed to buy Debtors’ interest. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to negotiate a settlement.


      Since the initial notice given to Debtors about the premium call, eight of the nine policies, the insured had outlived his or her life expectancy. However, Debtors believe that the premium calls were premature. After reviewing the Life Settlement Agreement, Debtors, because Woods name appeared at the top of the coverage page under "Independent Contractor," believe Woods is the supervisor Converse alluded to. Trustee now files a motion asking for the court to grant a default judgment against

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Woods.


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7



      PROCEDURAL HISTORY



      Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Defendants on June 20, 2018, which was timely served. Defendants had until July 20, 2018 to file and serve a written response to the Trustee’s complaint. Defendants filed a response, asking for the court to dismiss the case, on July 30, 2019.


      Trustee then filed a request for the clerk to enter a default judgment due to the untimely response of the Defendants. The clerk obliged, entering a default judgment against Defendants on August 8, 2018. Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC; Conestoga International, LLC; and Conestoga Trust (collectively, "Conestoga Entities") disputed that the service was proper. On September 7, 2018, Trustee and Conestoga Entities agreed that the Trustee would set aside the default judgment if they accept service as proper. The stipulation agreement was granted, and Conestoga Entities had until September 28, 2018 to file their response.


      Conestoga Entities filed an answer to the complaint on October 1, 2018 and asked for extending time to respond to the complaint. The motion was granted on October 12, 2018. Conestoga Entities did not file another answer. Roughly a year later, Trustee filed this motion, requesting a default judgment against Woods.


      DISCUSSION



      1. Entry of Default



        FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 55 states that "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party’s default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Local Rule 7055-1 provides further requirements relating to a motion for entry of default judgment, and those

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        John E. Tackett


        Chapter 7

        requirements have been substantially satisfied here.


      2. Motion for Default Judgment



        1. Proper Service of Summons and Complaint


          FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004(b)(1) states, in part:


          1. ervice may be made within the United States by first class mail postage prepaid as follows..


            1. Upon an individual other than an infant or incompetent, by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode or to the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession.


              Here, it appears that the motion for default judgment has been properly served.


        2. Complaint as True


          Upon default, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true. TeleVideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Almog v. Golden Summit Investors Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 12867972 at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (stating that when reviewing a motion for default judgment, the Court must accept the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint relating to liability as true.).

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          John E. Tackett

      3. Jurisdiction


        Chapter 7



        1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction



          This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C §157(b)(1)— Bankruptcy Judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11—and 28 U.S.C. §1334. Trustee has asserted a claim arising under title 11, a Chapter 7 voluntary petition, and the matter concerns the administration of an estate. U.S.C §157(b)(2)(A).


        2. Venue


          Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1409(a):

          "Except as otherwise provided in subsections (b) and (d), a proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 may be commenced in the district court in which such case is pending."

          Debtors’ lead bankruptcy case (16-15813) is currently pending in this Court.


        3. Personal Jurisdiction



          Personal Jurisdiction of an out-of-state defendant is appropriate if the relevant state’s long arm-statue permits the assertion of jurisdiction without violating federal due process. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. 374, F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). Due process requires that non-residents have certain "minimum contacts" with

          2:00 PM

          CONT...


          John E. Tackett


          Chapter 7

          the forum state. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326. U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

          In California the Ninth Circuit has articulated a three-prong test:

          1. the non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction in the forum or resident thereof, or perform some act by which it purposeful avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of forum’s laws;


          2. the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities; and


          3. the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with the fair play and substantial justice. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987).


            1. Purposeful Direction


              To determine if the first prong is satisfied, because the Trustee alleges fraud, a purposeful direction analysis must be used. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 (stating that purposeful direction analysis is used in tort-related claims). A three part-test is utilized in the purposeful analysis—the Calder- effects test. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Under this test, the defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) causing harm that the defendant know is likely to be suffered in the forum state. Id.


              Accepting all the allegations as true in the Trustee complaint, the Court finds that Woods, involved with Conestoga in some manner, with Converse, defrauded Californians into purchasing investments unsuitable for them.

              2:00 PM

              CONT...


              John E. Tackett

            2. Forum Related Activities


              Chapter 7



              The second prong requires that the Trustee’s claim shows that Debtors would not have been injured "but for" the defendant’s forum-related conduct. Myers v. Bennet Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001). Trustee claims that Debtors would not have suffered injury but for Converse’s conduct, who is believed to be an agent of Woods.


            3. Reasonableness


              The third prong requires that the court consider seven factors:

              1. The extent of defendant’s purposeful interjection;

              2. the burden on defendant in defending in the forum;

              3. the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of defendant’s state;

              4. the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the suit;

              5. the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy;

              6. the importance of the forum to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief; and


              7. the existence of an alternative forum. Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indust. AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1993).


              In engaging in this analysis, no one factor is dispositive. Id. at 1488. With respect to the first factor, Trustee has shown that Woods had intentional and continuous contact with California. Woods was listed as an "Independent Contractor" on the Life Settlement Agreement’s coverage page. (John E. Tackett Decl. ¶15). Woods was associated with Conestoga, which was selling securities in the State of California.

              2:00 PM

              CONT... John E. Tackett

              As to the second factor, there is nothing in the record or that the


              Chapter 7

              Court can see that indicating that it would be inconvenient for Woods to litigate this lawsuit in California.


              Looking at the third factor, Trustee claims arise under federal law and California Law. Thus, there is no potential conflict with another state’s law or regulation. Thus, this weighs in favor of the Trustee.


              Trustee is headquartered in California, and Debtors are residence of California. Californian courts, including this Court, have a strong interest in protecting California citizens and domestic businesses from the wrongful acts of a non-resident defendant.


              As to the fifth factor, most of the evidence and witnesses are based in Riverside, California. Converse met with Debtors multiple times at a Panera Bread in Riverside, where the contract was signed.


              Turning to the sixth factor, while it may not be as convenient for the Trustee to litigate this matter outside of California, there is nothing in the record suggesting that convenient and effective relief is unavailable in a different forum. Thus, this factor is neutral.


              Evaluating the seventh factor, the Court finds that this factor is neutral for the same reasons stated above. Thus, taking all the foregoing factors into consideration, the Court finds that personal jurisdiction over Woods in this action is appropriate.


      4. Analysis of Judgment by Default


        To obtain a default judgment, a two-step process is required: "(1) entry of party’s default (normally by the clerk), and (2) entry of a default judgment[, which can be given by the Clerk if the sum is certain or by the Court in all other cases]". In re McGee, 359 B.R. 765 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006). The Trustee has admitted that the sum in this claim is certain, so such an entry of default by the Clerk could be appropriate. However, this motion has provided additional support for the calculation of damages.

        The complaint includes fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of securities

        2:00 PM

        CONT...


        John E. Tackett


        Chapter 7

        qualification requirements, and misrepresentation in the sale of securities. The Trustee asks to be awarded interest and punitive damages as well as the full invested amount,

        $250,000. Before the Court can address the Trustee claims, it must determine if the pleadings support a finding of a principal-agent relationship between Woods and Converse since all the claims against Woods are based on the allegation that Converse is the agent of Woods

        1. Agent

          A principal-agent relationship can be created by one of two ways:

          1. actual authority—"an agent acts with actual authority when, at the time of taking action that has legal consequences for the principal, the agent reasonable believes, in accordance with the principal’s manifestations to the agent, that the principal wishes the agent so to act—or


          2. apparent authority—"the power held by an agent…to affect a principal’s legal relationship with third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestation. Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 2.01 and 2.03.


      Because there is no declaration provided by Converse, the pleading does not provide support for actual authority. Nor does the complaint allege sufficient facts to establish an agency relationship.


      However, there may be evidence of apparent authority. "Apparent authority ‘must be established by proof of something said or done by the principal on which [a third part] reasonably relied’; it ‘cannot be established merely by showing that [the purported agent] claimed authority or purported to exercise it.’" Pascal v. Agentra, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 179359, *10 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dist.

      Counsel of Iron Works, 124 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 1997).

      Examples of an establishment of apparent authority would be the "principal’s direct statement to the third party, directions to the agent to tell something to the third person, or the granting of permission to the agent to perform acts and conduct negotiations under circumstances which create in him a reputation of authority in the area which the agent acts and negotiates." Id. No evidence of this kind was presented in the pleading. Thus, the Trustee does not plead sufficient facts to support an apparent authority that Woods is vicariously liable for the acts purportedly perpetrated

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      by Converse.

      Furthermore, evidence of ratification is also not present in the pleading.

      Ratification is "the affirmance of a prior act done by another, whereby the act is given effect as if done by an agent acting with actual authority. Kristensen v. Credit Payment Serv., 879 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 2018). A principal can be found liable when he or she ratifies an originally unauthorized tort. Id.


      However, here the Debtors’ declaration simply reflects that Woods’ name appears on the cover page of the Life Settlement Agreement under "Independent Contractor Name." Nothing in the claim establishes such proof of a principal-agent relationship nor ratification of the agents authorized conduct.


      TENTATIVE RULING



      Thus, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion for default judgment.


      APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


      Party Information

      Debtor(s):

      John E. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

      Defendant(s):

      Conestoga Settlement Services, LLC Represented By

      Charles Miller

      Conestoga International Holdings, Represented By

      Charles Miller

      Conestoga Trust Represented By Charles Miller

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      John E. Tackett


      Chapter 7

      Provident Trust Group, LLC Represented By Marshall J Hogan

      De Leon & Washburh, P.C. Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

      Thomas Washburn Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

      Hector De Leon Represented By Jasmin Yang David D Samani

      Jeff Converse Pro Se

      Michael Woods Pro Se

      Michael McDermott Pro Se

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Ellen O. Tackett Represented By Stefan R Pancer

      Movant(s):

      Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

      Plaintiff(s):

      Steven M Speier Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe

      Trustee(s):

      Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe

      Thomas J Eastmond

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


      Chapter 13


      #18.00 CONT Order to show cause why claim objections should not be overruled or sanctions issues for failure to prosecute the matter


      From: 11/13/19 Also #19 & #20 EH   

      Docket 94


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


      Chapter 13


      #19.00 Order to show cause why Edward Weber and Kristi Wells should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with this court's order to show cause


      Also #18 & #20 EH   

      Docket 107


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


      Chapter 13


      #20.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 11 by Claimant Natasha Reynoso and Mark Reynoso

      HOLDING DATE


      From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19, 8/21/19, 11/13/19


      Also #18 & #19 EH   

      Docket 44


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Movant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


      #21.00 Order to show cause why Michael Hemming should not be held in contempt of court for failure to comply with this court's order to show cause


      Also #22 & #23 EH   

      Docket 177


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Defendant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Plaintiff(s):

      Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


      #22.00 CONT Order to appear and show cause why case should not be dismissed or sanctions issued for failure to prosecute the matter


      From: 11/13/19 Also #21 & #23 EH   

      Docket 167


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Defendant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Plaintiff(s):

      Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

      2:00 PM

      CONT...

      Trustee(s):


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:16-18182


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Chapter 13

      Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


      #23.00 CONT Status Conference RE: [13] Amended Complaint by Michael J Hemming on behalf of Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Anne Louise Goodman, Douglas Edward Goodman. (RE: related document(s)1 Adversary case 6:16-ap-01277. Complaint by Mark & Natasha Reynoso against Douglas Edward Goodman, Anne Louise Goodman. false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud)) filed by Plaintiff Mark & Natasha Reynoso)

      (Holding Date)


      From: 5/4/17, 8/24/17, 8/31/17, 9/14/17, 11/9/17, 12/20/17, 2/28/18, 7/11/18, 10/24/18, 12/19/18, 2/6/19, 4/17/19, 8/21/19, 10/16/19, 11/13/19


      Also #21 & #22 EH   

      Docket 13


      Tentative Ruling:

      - NONE LISTED -


      Debtor(s):


      Party Information

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Defendant(s):

      Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

      Joint Debtor(s):

      Anne Louise Goodman Represented By

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Douglas Edward Goodman


      Edward T Weber


      Chapter 13

      Plaintiff(s):

      Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

      Trustee(s):

      Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

      2:00 PM

      6:13-16964


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7

      Adv#: 6:13-01171 Schrader v. Sangha


      #24.00 Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Decision Granting In Part and Denying In Part Motion for Summary Adjudication on Remand


      EH   


      Docket 330

      Tentative Ruling:

      12/4/2019

      BACKGROUND


      On April 18, 2013, Narinder Sangha ("Defendant") filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. On April 25, 2013, Charles Schrader ("Plaintiff") filed an adversary complaint against Defendant for non-dischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (6).


      On August 12, 2013, the Court entered its first scheduling order, directing the parties to complete mediation by October 16, 2013; that deadline was ultimately continued to October 29, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the Court entered a second scheduling order, directing the parties to complete mediation by January 31, 2014.


      On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and a corresponding judgment. This judgment was appealed, ultimately being vacated and remanded by the Ninth Circuit on March 10, 2017. On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for summary judgment which, after several continuances, was ultimately granted in part and denied in part on March 15, 2019 (the "Opinion").

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7


      Since the Court issued the Opinion granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiff, the parties have engaged in several discovery disputes, with Defendant switching counsel on multiple occasions during the course of the case. On May 3, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to reopen discovery. As noted by the Court on the hearing of May 22, 2019, the Court had never actually set a discovery deadline, and, therefore, the Court denied the motion. Based upon the discussion with parties at the hearings of May 22, 2019, the Court entered a scheduling order on May 24, 2019. The scheduling order set a discovery deadline of July 31, 2019, and a deadline to file dispositive motions of August 23, 2019.


      On July 10, 2019, the Court heard Defendant’s (then pro se) motion to serve additional discovery requests. That motion was denied for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing of July 10, 2019.


      On July 30, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to extend discovery cutoff and related dates. On September 3, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to extend the discovery cutoff to the limited extent of clarifying that discovery need only be propounded, not completed, by July 31, 2019. On October 16, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiff, which the Court ultimately denied.


      On October 28, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the Opinion, arguing that: (1) the underlying 2011 state court judgment was void for failure to properly plead damages; (2) issue preclusion was inappropriate because certain affirmative defenses were neither actually litigated nor necessarily decided; and (3) public policy is not served by application of issue preclusion. On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition. On November 27, 2019, Defendant filed his reply. In the reply, Defendant concedes that Plaintiff’s argument, that the 2011 state court judgment was not void, is correct, and thus withdrew that argument. Defendant also withdrew his third argument to the extent it "was based on the argument that Judgment was void."


      DISCUSSION

      2:00 PM

      CONT...


      Narinder Sangha


      Chapter 7


      As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s argument that the instant motion was untimely for failure to comply with this Court’s scheduling order. The Court’s scheduling order entered May 24, 2019, states that the last day for pre-trial motions to be filed and served is August 23, 2019. Plaintiff, characterizing the instant motion as a pre-trial motion, argues that the motion is untimely pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order. Defendant argues that the instant motion is not a pre-trial motion, and, as such, is not untimely pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order.


      The Court agrees with Defendant’s definition of the term pre-trial motion. The instant motion, as a motion which seeks reconsideration of an already entered order or judgment, is more properly characterized as a post-trial (or post-hearing) motion.

      While the motion, if granted, would affect the scope of the future trial, its direct aim, modifying a previous Court order, is not within the scope of the Court’s form scheduling order.


      Turning to the legal arguments raised, FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated into bankruptcy proceedings by FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 9024, states:


  2. Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

    1. mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect


As noted by Defendant, the Ninth Circuit has previously held that errors of law fit within the scope of FED. R. CIV. P. Rule 60(b)(1). See, e.g., Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 ("Because the words ‘mistake’ and ‘inadvertence’ are not so limited, they may include mistake and inadvertence by the judge."). The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion, however, is not universally accepted across circuits. See, e.g., Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F.2d 1266 (1st Cir. 1971); Swam v. United States, 327 F.2d 431 (7th Cir. 1964) (both concluding that judicial legal error does not

2:00 PM

CONT...


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

fit within the scope of Rule 60(b)(1)).


The Sixth Circuit previously wrote the following in discussing the split of authority regarding whether judicial legal error falls within the scope of Rule 60(b)(1):


We need not choose between these conflicting views at this time. This is so because, regardless of whether we determine legal error comes within Rule 60(b)(1), the vast majority of courts that have concluded that legal error comes within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1) have also determined that, in using the rule in this manner, the moving party must make his or her motion within the time limits for appeal. A motion under Rule 60(b) cannot be used cannot be used to avoid the consequences of a party’s decision to settle the litigation or to forego an appeal from an adverse ruling. Generally speaking a party who makes an informed choice as to a particular course of action will not be relieved of the consequences when it subsequently develops that the choice was unfortunate.


Steinhoff v. Harris, 698 F.2d 270, 275 (6th Cir. 1983) (quotations omitted) (citing Sampson v. Radio Corp. of Am., 434 F.2d 315 (2nd Cir. 1970); Hoffman

v. Celebrezze, 405 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1969); Gila River Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 368 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1966); Schildhaus v. Moe, 335 F.2d 529 (2nd Cir. 1964); 7 MOORE, Federal Practice ¶ 60.22[2], [3] (2nd ed. 1948 & Supp. 1981); see also Hill v. McDermott, Inc., 827 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1987).


As noted in the block quotation above, the Ninth Circuit previously stated, in Gila River Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 368 F.2d 354, 357 (9th Cir. 1966), that "under Rule 60(b)(1) the trial judge can, within a reasonable time not exceeding the time for appeal, hold a rehearing and change his decision." The Gila River Ranch decision has not been overturned. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the validity of the Gila River Ranch holding:

2:00 PM

CONT...


Narinder Sangha

Rule 60(b) authorizes relief from judgments for "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." The "mistakes" of judges may be remedied under this provision, which also encompasses mistakes in the application of the law. A trial judge may, within a reasonable time, but not exceeding the time for appeal, hold a rehearing under Rule 60(b) and change the award.

. . .

To be timely, Phonometrics’ Rule 60 motion must have been filed within the 30-day window following the entry of the judgment awarding attorneys’ fees.


Chapter 7



Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., 2005 WL 663414 at *1 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).


Therefore, pursuant to the caselaw cited above, Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion premised upon judicial legal error is untimely as having been filed more than seven months after the Opinion was entered.


Tentative Ruling:


The Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi

2:00 PM

CONT...


Narinder Sangha


Chapter 7

Defendant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Charity J Manee

Movant(s):

Narinder Sangha Represented By Deepalie M Joshi Charity J Manee

Plaintiff(s):

Charles Edward Schrader Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Karl T Anderson (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-29922


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


#25.00 Motion For Leave To Amend Defendant's Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment Etc


Also #26 EH   

Docket 195


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Movant(s):

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Plaintiff(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

2:00 PM

6:13-29922


Nancy Ann Howell


Chapter 7

Adv#: 6:14-01070 Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom et al v. Howell


#26.00 Motion to strike Request For Judicial Notice Also #25

EH   


Docket 201


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Defendant(s):

Nancy Ann Howell Pro Se

Movant(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Plaintiff(s):

Law Office of Andrew S. Bisom Represented By

Andrew S Bisom

Eisenberg Law Firm, APC Represented By Andrew S Bisom

Trustee(s):

Steven M Speier (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

Adv#: 6:16-01277 Reynoso v. Goodman et al


#1.00 Motion for Authority to Compromise with Theresa Mann EH   

Docket 172

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Defendant(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Movant(s):

Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

11:00 AM

CONT...


Douglas Edward Goodman


Chapter 13

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber Andrew L Leff

Anne Louise Goodman Pro Se

Douglas Edward Goodman Pro Se

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Plaintiff(s):

Mark & Natasha Reynoso Represented By Michael J Hemming

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-18182


Douglas Edward Goodman and Anne Louise Goodman


Chapter 13


#2.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 98


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas Edward Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Joint Debtor(s):

Anne Louise Goodman Represented By Edward T Weber

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:16-18082


Joseph John Vargas and Lydia Vargas


Chapter 13


#3.00 Motion to vacate dismissal and Reinstate Chapter 13 Case EH   

Docket 164


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph John Vargas Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Lydia Vargas Represented By

Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Joseph John Vargas Represented By Dana Travis

Lydia Vargas Represented By

Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13335


Annabelle M. Vigil


Chapter 13


#4.00 CONT Motion to Disallow Claim No. 3 filed by Lake Hills Maintenance Corporation From: 9/19/19, 10/17/19

Also #5 & #5.1 EH   

Docket 51

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12/18/19 AT 11:00 AM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13335


Annabelle M. Vigil


Chapter 13


#5.00 CONT Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments


From: 9/19/19, 10/17/19 Also

EH   


Docket 53

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12/18/19 AT 11:00 AM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Movant(s):

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:18-13335


Annabelle M. Vigil


Chapter 13


#5.10 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 9/5/19, 10/3/19, 10/17/19

Also #4 & #5 EH   

Docket 48

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 12/18/19 AT 11:00 AM

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Annabelle M. Vigil Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19284


Kervin Rayal Routt


Chapter 13


#6.00 Motion By United States Trustee to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case With A Re-filing Bar EH   

Docket 8

Tentative Ruling:

12/5/19

BACKGROUND


On October 22, 2019 ("Petition Date"), Kervin Rayal Routt ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition. Debtor’s petition lacked numerous documents which were required by Local Bankr. Rule 1007 and 3015(b). The Clerk of Court lodged an order- to-comply and notice-of-intent-to-dismiss on October 22, 2019, giving Debtor fourteen days to submit said documents. (Dkt No. 1).


On November 5, 2019, the deadline to submit the required documents had passed, and Debtor had not submitted a single document that was asked for by the Clerk of Court. On November 8, 2019, the United State Trustee ("UST") requested the Court to dismiss the case with a re-filing bar of one year due to Debtor’s bad-faith filing.


Prior to the filing of this Chapter 13 voluntary petition, Debtor had filed two other Chapter 13 voluntary petitions within this year, case numbers 19-13034 and 19-11106. One of the prior cases the Debtor represented himself pro se and the other

prior case he was represented by Counsel. No matter who did the representation, both prior cases were dismissed because Debtor failed to file all case commencement documents.


UST alleges, under the totality of circumstances, the Debtor’s conduct is sufficient to warrant a finding of bad faith: (1) debtor has filed multiple cases within a one-year period, (2) Debtor did not file all case commencement documents in this petition, and (3) Debtor failed to disclose his prior cases. (Dkt No. 8, Pg. 6).


Furthermore, UST states that the absence of other creditors together with Debtor’s incomplete filing has hindered the ability of all creditors to enforce their rights.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Kervin Rayal Routt


Chapter 13

Id. at 7 Thus, UST states, the dismissal of this petition would enable creditors to pursue their non-bankruptcy remedies—this is the best interest of creditors and the estate. Id.


DISCUSSION


Regarding UST’s request to dismiss the case, 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) provides a non- exhaustive list of grounds for dismissal of a Chapter 13 case. Sections 1307(c)(1), (3), (4), and (9) all provide grounds to dismiss a Chapter 13 case when the debtor files a skeletal petition and fails to take any further action to prosecute the case. Section 1307(c) instructs the Court, however, to consider whether dismissal or conversion is in the best interests of creditors.


Taking judicial notice of the schedules filed in Debtor’s most recent case, 6:19- bk-19284-MH, no determination could be made if Debtor has unexempt assets which could provide a distribution to creditors. Nonetheless, UST believes a dismissal, instead of conversion, would be the best interest of creditors and the estate.

Assuming that dismissal is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, the Court notes that it empowered to impose a re-filing bar under 11 U.S.C. § 349(a). As COLLIER notes, courts’ analysis of this section is somewhat confused due to confounding "dismissal with prejudice" with "dismissal with injunction against future filings." COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 349.02[3]; compare In re Garcia, 479 B.R. 488 (Bankr.

N.D. Ind. 2012) (denying motion for dismissal with prejudice but imposing three-year re-filing bar) with In re Craighead, 377 B.R. 648 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2007) (appearing to equate dismissal with prejudice with an injunction against re-filing).


There is also a circuit split concerning whether an injunction on re-filing for more than 180 days is allowed under the Bankruptcy Code. Compare In re Frieouf, 938 F.2d 1099 (10th Cir. 1991) (180 days is maximum allowed length of re-filing injunction) with Casse v. Key Bank Nat. Ass’n, 198 F.3d 327 (2nd Cir. 1999) (injunction against filing for more than 180 days permissible). 11 U.S.C. § 349(a) reads:


Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise, the dismissal of a case under this title does not bar the discharge, in a later case under this title, of debts that were dischargeable in the case dismissed; nor does the dismissal of a case under this title prejudice the debtor with regard to the filing of a subsequent petition under this title, except as provided in section 109(g) of this title.

11:00 AM

CONT...


Kervin Rayal Routt


Chapter 13


The disagreement revolves around whether the qualifier "Unless, the court, for cause, orders otherwise" modifies the content after the semi-colon. In re Leavitt noted this disagreement, but since the court was dealing with a dismissal with prejudice, rather than an injunction against re-filing, it did not resolve the issue. 209 B.R. 935, 942 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997). Within the Ninth Circuit, it appears the trend is to adopt the reasoning of the Second Circuit and allow injunctions for more than 180 days, and the Court agrees with that reading of the statute. See e.g. In re Velasques, 2012 WL 8255582 at *3 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012).


In this case, this petition is the Debtor’s third filing in the previous twelve months in which Debtor filed an incomplete petition and failed to cure the deficiency.

Furthermore, Debtor failed to disclose two previous filings in the voluntary petition, which is signed under penalty of perjury. For these reasons, the Court is inclined to find the requested one-year re-filing bar to be appropriate in the circumstances presented.


Moreover, Debtor’s failure to oppose is deemed consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, finding the one-year re-filing bar to be appropriate in the circumstances presented.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Kervin Rayal Routt Pro Se

Movant(s):

United States Trustee (RS) Represented By

Abram Feuerstein esq

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Kervin Rayal Routt


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19106


David Cornelius Watson and Crystal Tamara Watson


Chapter 13


#7.00 Motion for Setting Property Value EH   

Docket 21

Tentative Ruling: 12/5/19

Background:


On October 16, 2019 ("Petition Date"), David Cornelius Watson ("Debtor") and Crystal Tamara Watson (Joint Debtor) filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition. Debtors owned a 2014 Ford Flex (the "Vehicle") located at 14313 Pioneer Way, Victorville, CA 9294 ("Debtors’ Residence"). On the Petition Date, Debtors valued the Vehicle at

$15,014.00. Official Form 106A/B 2, ECF No. 1.


On November 7, 2019, Debtors filed a Motion to Value Collateral ("Motion"). Debtors allege, as of the Petition Date, a balance of $20,388.00 was owed to Flagship Credit Acceptance ("Flagship"). Debtors’ Mot. for Order Determining Value of Collateral 4, ECF No. 21. Debtor now requests the Court to value the Vehicle at

$14,575.00. Such value would require the Debtor to pay Flagship the secured amount

$14,575.00, instead of $15,014.000, and leaving the remaining amount as unsecured,

$5,813.00. Id.


Debtors provided a copy of a NADA report in support of Debtor’s assertion that as of the Petition Date, or close to it, November 6, 2019, the value of the Vehicle was

$14,575.00. Flagship has neither filed a proof of claim nor an objection to this motion.


Applicable Law:


  1. Value of the Vehicle


    11 U.S.C §506(a)(2):

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    David Cornelius Watson and Crystal Tamara Watson


    Chapter 13

    If the Debtor is an individual in a case under Chapter 7 or 13, such value with respect to personal property securing an allowed claim shall be determined based on the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition without deduction for cots of sale or marketing. With respect to property acquired for personal, family, or household purposes, replacement value shall mean the price a retail merchant would charge for property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined. [italicized for emphasis]"


    In In re Morales, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California determined that retail value should be calculated "by adjusting the Kelley Blue Book or N.A.D.A. Guide retail value for a like vehicle by a reasonable amount in light of the evidence presented regarding the condition of the vehicle or any other relevant factors." In re Morales, 387 B.R. 36, 45 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008).


    According to the court in Morales, the retail values, and not the private party values, are the appropriate starting points because the text of § 506(a)(2) refers to "the price a retail merchant would charge" and does not refer to the price a private party would charge. Morales, 387 B.R. at 46. The language of § 506(a)(2) provides further support for the use of retail values rather than private party values in the first sentence that states replacement value should be calculated "without deduction for costs of sale or marketing." § 506(a)(2); Morales, 387 B.R. at 46. Although "replacement value" is modified with respect to property acquired for personal use in the second sentence of § 506(a)(2), the rule regarding costs of sale or marketing is not modified and is therefore still applicable. § 506(a)(2); Morales, 387 B.R. at 46. Consequently, in contrast to private party values, "the retail value better approximates a price that includes the ‘costs of sale and marketing,’" even if downward adjustments must be made to accommodate a less then excellent or optimal condition of a vehicle. Morales, 387 B.R. at 46.


    Here, Debtors provided a NADA report in support of the assertion that the retail value of the Vehicle as of the Petition Date was $14,575.00. Accordingly, the Court finds that Debtors have provided sufficient proof that the retail value of the Vehicle as of the Petition Date was that amount.


  2. Secured Claim is Secured up to the Value of the Collateral.


Section 506(a) establishes that the portion of a secured claim that exceeds the value of the property securing the claim is unsecured. 11 U.S.C. § 506(a). Based on the

11:00 AM

CONT...


David Cornelius Watson and Crystal Tamara Watson


Chapter 13

evidence presented, the Court finds that the value of the Vehicle is $14,575.00, and as such, the Flagship has a secured claim in the amount of $14,575.00 for purposes of plan confirmation.


Moreover, Flagship has not opposed the Motion, which may be deemed as consent to the Court granting the Motion, per LBR 9013-1(h).


Tentative:


The Court is inclined to GRANT the Motion and value the Vehicle at

$14,575.00 for purposes of plan’s confirmation only, a resulting unsecured claim of

$5,813.00.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

David Cornelius Watson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Crystal Tamara Watson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

David Cornelius Watson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Crystal Tamara Watson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14828


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13


#8.00 Motion to Disallow Claims 5,6 & 7


Also #9 EH   

Docket 27

Tentative Ruling:

12/5/19

BACKGROUND:


On June 3, 2019 ("Petition Date"), Portia Wondaline Barmes ("Debtor") filed for voluntary Chapter 13 petition. As part of the required documents to file the petition, Debtor submitted Official Form 106 E/F, which included unsecured claims. Official Form 106 E/F 1-5, ECF No. 1. Debtor listed Riverside Community Hospital ("RCU") as one of the unsecured creditors she owes. Id. The amount of the claim listed was $80.00 ("Claim No. 1"). Id.


Debtor did not list any more claims for RCU. However, in the month of June 2019, RCU filed six proofs of claim. Debtor has filed this motion requesting that claims 5-1, 6-1, and 7-1 (collectively the "Disputed Claims") be disallowed.


In her declaration filed with this motion, Debtor alleges that the Disputed Claims were for services which may have been rendered to her daughter, Portia C. Barmes.

Decl. of Portia W. Barmes 6, ECF No. 27. Debtor’s daughter also submitted a declaration, claiming that the services were rendered to her and not her mother. Decl. of Portia C. Barmes 7, ECF No. 27. The Court notes that Debtor and her daughter have exactly the same forename and surname. Except for their middle names, Debtor’s and her daughter’s names would be indistinguishable.


Debtor included her birth date and last four digits of her social security number

11:00 AM

CONT...


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13

to provide additional verification. Decl. of Portia W. Barmes 6, ECF No. 27. RCU filed Form 410 correctly for the Disputed Claims. However, when question 6 of Part 2 is answered for Official Form 410, "Do you have any number you use to identify the Debtor," four digits are provided to identify the Debtor. These last four digits cannot be social security numbers because each of them is different from the other. Thus, each claim has a unique account number identifying the alleged owner of the debt. This would weaken Debtor’s claim that the services were provided to her daughter.


APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014, and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP

11:00 AM

CONT...


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13

1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at

173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


TENTATIVE RULING:


Here, while the disputed claims are prima facie valid, the Movant has presented evidence that the disputed claims do not reflect obligations of the Debtor. RCU has failed to present any evidence to meet the shifting burden. In addition, having failed to oppose RCU is deemed to consent to the disallowance. LBR 9013-1(h). Therefore, the tentative is to SUSTAIN the objections.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Portia Wondaline Barmes Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Portia Wondaline Barmes Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-14828


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13


#9.00 Motion to Disallow Claims 10


Also #8 EH   

Docket 29

Tentative Ruling:

12/5/19

BACKGROUND:


On June 3, 2019 ("Petition Date"), Portia Wondaline Barmes ("Debtor") filed for voluntary Chapter 13 petition. As part of the required documents to file the petition, Debtor submitted Official Form 106 E/F, which included unsecured claims. Official Form 106 E/F 1-5, ECF No. 1. Debtor neither listed Verizon Wireless ("Verizon") nor Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC ("Jefferson"), the current owner of the claim the Debtor wants to disallow.


Nonetheless, on August 6, 2019, Jefferson filed an Official Form 410–Proof of Claim, stating that Debtor owned it $2,716.79 ("Claim 10-1"). Debtor filed this motion requesting the Court to disallow it. Debtor states that the last transaction date and payment date which was provided by Jefferson states December 21, 2012. Debtor’s Mot. to Disallow Claim Number 10 at 2. Debtor alleges this claim was filed beyond any reasonable statute of limitations. Id.


Jefferson even acknowledges Debtor’s sentiment. On page 4 of Official Form 410 filed for this claim, Jefferson states that "the claim may be unenforceable because it is outside of the applicable statute of limitations."

11:00 AM

CONT...


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13

APPLICABLE LAW:


Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(a), a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Absent an objection, a proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("FRBP") 3001(f). See Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc., 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). When a party files an objection to a proof of claim, that filing "creates a dispute which is a contested matter" within the meaning of FRBP 9014, and the Court must resolve the matter after notice and opportunity for hearing upon a motion for relief. Id.


When a creditor has filed a proof of claim that complies with the rules (thereby giving rise to the presumption of validity), the burden shifts to the objecting party who must "present evidence to overcome the prima facie case." In re Medina, 205 B.R. 216, 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1996). To defeat the claim, the objecting party must provide sufficient evidence and "show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039 (quoting In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991)). "The objector must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency." Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1040 (quoting In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992)). If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Consol. Pioneer Mort, 178 B.R. 222, 226 (9th Cir. BAP 1995), aff’d, 91 F.3d 151 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allegheny Int’l, 954 F.2d at

173-74). The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times on the claimant. See Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039; see also Holm, 931 F.2d at 623.


Cal. Code Civ. Procedure §337


"Within four years…(b) An action to recover (1) upon a book account whether consisting of one or more entries; (2) upon an account stated based upon an account in writing, but the acknowledgement of the account need not be in writing; (3) a balance

11:00 AM

CONT...


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13

due upon a mutual, open and current account, the items of which are in writing; provided, however, that if an account state is based upon an account of one item, the time shall begin to run from the date of the item, and if an account stated is based upon an account of more than one item, the time shall begin to run from the date of the last item….(d) When the period in which an action must be commenced under this section has run, a person shall not bring suit or initiate an arbitration or other legal proceeding to collect the debt…"


TENTATIVE RULING:


Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ Procedures §337, Claim 10-1 is time-barred.

December 21, 2012 was both the last payment date and the last transaction date. Thus, this is the date where the four-year limitation starts to run. Four years after December 21, 2012 is December 21, 2016, which is about two years and some months too late from the Petition Date.


Jefferson fails to object to this motion. Thus, the Court is inclined to GRANT this order, disallowing Claim 10-1 in its entirety.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Portia Wondaline Barmes Represented By Dana Travis

Movant(s):

Portia Wondaline Barmes Represented By Dana Travis

11:00 AM

CONT...

Trustee(s):


Portia Wondaline Barmes


Chapter 13

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#10.00 CONT Motion RE: Objection to Claim Number 4 by Claimant CIT BANK, N.A..


From: 9/5/19, 10/3/19 Also #11

EH   


Docket 22

*** VACATED *** REASON: CONTINUED TO 1/9/20 AT 11:00 A.M.

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Movant(s):

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-13994


Oscar Carrasco De Dios and Sofia P. De Dios


Chapter 13


#11.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 8/1/19, 9/5/19, 10/3/19

Also #10 EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Oscar Carrasco De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Joint Debtor(s):

Sofia P. De Dios Represented By

Glenn Ward Calsada

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17725


Michelle R. Rayner


Chapter 13


#12.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/21/19

EH    


Docket 2


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Michelle R. Rayner Represented By Terrence Fantauzzi

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17884


Cassandra Henderson


Chapter 13


#13.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Cassandra Henderson Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17897


Christina D. Cochran


Chapter 13


#14.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christina D. Cochran Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17901


Wendy Ramirez


Chapter 13


#15.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Wendy Ramirez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17919


Fernando Lee Cuevas


Chapter 13


#16.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/27/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Fernando Lee Cuevas Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17930


Mark Anthony Romero and Trinette Christine Romero


Chapter 13


#17.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mark Anthony Romero Represented By Rex Tran

Joint Debtor(s):

Trinette Christine Romero Represented By Rex Tran

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17945


Yvonne Irene Rodriguez


Chapter 13


#18.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Yvonne Irene Rodriguez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17950


Frank Joseph Castodio


Chapter 13


#19.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Frank Joseph Castodio Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17957


Maria Luisa Barrera and Armando Ibarra Barrera, Sr.


Chapter 13


#20.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/30/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maria Luisa Barrera Represented By Nathan Fransen

Joint Debtor(s):

Armando Ibarra Barrera Sr. Represented By Nathan Fransen

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17970


Hugo Perez


Chapter 13


#21.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/9/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Hugo Perez Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17987


John A Kiernan and Maria Kiernan


Chapter 13


#22.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

John A Kiernan Represented By Paul Y Lee

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Kiernan Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17991


Wayne Morris and Celia Morris


Chapter 13


#23.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Wayne Morris Represented By Michael A Cisneros

Joint Debtor(s):

Celia Morris Represented By

Michael A Cisneros

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17992


Judy May Wells


Chapter 13


#24.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Judy May Wells Represented By David L Nelson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18002


Joseph R. Hernandez


Chapter 13


#25.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joseph R. Hernandez Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18003


Ruben Macias and Carmen Macias


Chapter 13


#26.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Ruben Macias Represented By Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Carmen Macias Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18004


Marcus Lee Henderson


Chapter 13


#27.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Marcus Lee Henderson Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18038


Koppi V. Beskid


Chapter 13


#28.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Koppi V. Beskid Represented By Gregory Ashcraft

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18080


Jose C Aguiar and Maria Fatima Aguiar


Chapter 13


#29.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose C Aguiar Represented By

Dana Travis

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria Fatima Aguiar Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18082


Jeffrey Danh


Chapter 13


#30.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeffrey Danh Represented By

Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18089


Edwin Leonel Barco and Juana De Jesus Marin


Chapter 13


#31.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Edwin Leonel Barco Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Joint Debtor(s):

Juana De Jesus Marin Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18105


Jason Benjamin Marlow and Linda Sue Marlow


Chapter 13


#32.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jason Benjamin Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Linda Sue Marlow Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18138


Carlos Villasenor and Christine Villasenor


Chapter 13


#33.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carlos Villasenor Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Joint Debtor(s):

Christine Villasenor Represented By Christopher Hewitt

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18143


Rajinder Adlakha


Chapter 13


#34.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Rajinder Adlakha Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18144


Andy Barajas


Chapter 13


#35.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Andy Barajas Represented By

Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18153


Jesus Antonio Palomares and Claudia Heredia Palomares


Chapter 13


#36.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/4/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jesus Antonio Palomares Pro Se

Joint Debtor(s):

Claudia Heredia Palomares Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18174


Karen Ann Hurd


Chapter 13


#37.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/7/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Karen Ann Hurd Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18194


Raymond Joseph Prieto, Jr. and Dena Prieto


Chapter 13


#38.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Raymond Joseph Prieto Jr. Represented By David Lozano

Joint Debtor(s):

Dena Prieto Represented By

David Lozano

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18197


Melquiades Ortiz and Elizabeth De Jesus Aurelio-Ortiz


Chapter 13


#39.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Melquiades Ortiz Represented By David Lozano

Joint Debtor(s):

Elizabeth De Jesus Aurelio-Ortiz Represented By

David Lozano

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18209


Carlos A Martinez


Chapter 13


#40.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carlos A Martinez Represented By Daniel King

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18216


Billy J Woody and Tamara L Woody


Chapter 13


#41.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Billy J Woody Represented By Amanda G Billyard

Joint Debtor(s):

Tamara L Woody Represented By Amanda G Billyard

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18220


Virgilin Suan Masibay


Chapter 13


#42.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Virgilin Suan Masibay Represented By Rex Tran

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18241


Rhonda Kline


Chapter 13


#43.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 9/25/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Rhonda Kline Represented By Bruce A Boice

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18242


Roderick Harlan Friloux and Rebecca Andrade-Friloux


Chapter 13


#44.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Roderick Harlan Friloux Represented By Tina H Trinh

Joint Debtor(s):

Rebecca Andrade-Friloux Represented By Tina H Trinh

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18247


Douglas E Crayton


Chapter 13


#45.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Douglas E Crayton Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18289


Zackery B. Ogletree and Danielle Police


Chapter 13


#46.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Zackery B. Ogletree Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Joint Debtor(s):

Danielle Police Represented By

James D. Hornbuckle

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-18295


Jihad Jundi


Chapter 13


#47.00 Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan EH    

Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 10/22/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jihad Jundi Represented By

Kevin Tang

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-16941


Latacia D Sanders


Chapter 13


#48.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 10/31/19, 11/21/19

EH    


Docket 38


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Latacia D Sanders Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-17413


Alejandro Rubio Williams


Chapter 13


#49.00 CONT Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan From: 11/7/19

EH    


Docket 0

*** VACATED *** REASON: CASE DISMISSED 11/26/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alejandro Rubio Williams Represented By Robert W Ripley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:14-19520


Jeffrey B Jordan


Chapter 13


#50.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/3/19, 10/31/19

EH       


Docket 71


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jeffrey B Jordan Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:15-22033


Shyla L. Montgomery


Chapter 13


#51.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 121


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Shyla L. Montgomery Represented By Michael Smith Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-12191


Valicia LaShawn Fennell


Chapter 13


#52.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 112


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Valicia LaShawn Fennell Pro Se

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-12849


Elsy G. Mejia


Chapter 13


#53.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 66


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Joint Debtor(s):


Party Information

Elsy G. Mejia Represented By

James G. Beirne

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:16-20163


Sandra M. Hankins


Chapter 13


#54.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 103


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Sandra M. Hankins Represented By Michael Smith Craig K Streed Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-11131


Bruce Howard Ruggles and Ann Marie Ruggles


Chapter 13


#55.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/21/19

EH   


Docket 131

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Bruce Howard Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Joint Debtor(s):

Ann Marie Ruggles Represented By John F Brady

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-13539


Albert Granados


Chapter 13


#56.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Albert Granados Represented By Jonathan D Doan

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14157


Joe Wallace Brown and Yolanda Denise Moore


Chapter 13


#57.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/21/19

EH   


Docket 57

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 12/2/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Joe Wallace Brown Represented By Christopher J Langley

Joint Debtor(s):

Yolanda Denise Moore Represented By Christopher J Langley

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-14650


Brian Eugene Anderson and Gina Marie Anderson


Chapter 13


#58.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/21/19

EH   


Docket 52


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Brian Eugene Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Joint Debtor(s):

Gina Marie Anderson Represented By Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-15647


Omar Enrique Lopez


Chapter 13


#59.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Omar Enrique Lopez Represented By Dana Travis

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-16542


Mike A. Granados, Jr. and Carolynne Jeannette Granados


Chapter 13


#60.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/21/19

EH   


Docket 57


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Mike A. Granados Jr. Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld

Joint Debtor(s):

Carolynne Jeannette Granados Represented By Gregory M Shanfeld Gabriella Gonzales

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-15598


Alma Barbara Ewing


Chapter 13


#61.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 30

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Alma Barbara Ewing Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:18-19183


Carmen Lynn Chilson


Chapter 13


#62.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/17/19

EH   


Docket 73


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Carmen Lynn Chilson Represented By Steven A Alpert

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-10001


Jose Diaz and Betty Diaz


Chapter 13


#63.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19, 11/21/19

EH   


Docket 32


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Jose Diaz Represented By

Nima S Vokshori

Joint Debtor(s):

Betty Diaz Represented By

Nima S Vokshori

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-11281


Nadia Michelle Lipscomb


Chapter 13


#64.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 11/21/19

EH   


Docket 43


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nadia Michelle Lipscomb Represented By Benjamin R Heston

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-12079


Nora Munoz


Chapter 13


#65.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 31


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Nora Munoz Represented By

William Radcliffe

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-13806


Gonzalo Najera and Wendy Lomeli Najera


Chapter 13


#66.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Gonzalo Najera Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Joint Debtor(s):

Wendy Lomeli Najera Represented By Sundee M Teeple

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-13876


Christopher Steven Henthorn and Christine Lynne Apodaca


Chapter 13


#67.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 29


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Christopher Steven Henthorn Represented By Seema N Sood

Joint Debtor(s):

Christine Lynne Apodaca Represented By Seema N Sood

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-14735


Trinen Arniese Pratt


Chapter 13


#68.00 CONT Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case From: 10/31/19, 11/21/19

EH   


Docket 27


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Trinen Arniese Pratt Represented By

Rabin J Pournazarian

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:19-15511


Ralph Carver Lowe


Chapter 13


#69.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 32

*** VACATED *** REASON: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FILED 11/21/19

Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ralph Carver Lowe Represented By Neil R Hedtke

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:01 AM

6:17-16114


Allan Omar Ramos


Chapter 13


#70.00 Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Case EH   

Docket 51


Tentative Ruling:

- NONE LISTED -


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Allan Omar Ramos Represented By Julie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-20173


Roshanda Jeannen Dodds


Chapter 13


#1.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 9658 Bella Vista Dr., Morongo Valley, CA 92256


MOVANT: ROSHANDA JEANNEN DODDS


EH   


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

12/10/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) provides for a statutory presumption that a case was filed in bad faith when a debtor had a case dismissed in the previous year after failing to perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the court. Here, Debtor’s previous case was dismissed for failure to make plan payments on October 31, 2019. Therefore, the instant case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Section 362(c)(3)(C) requires that Debtor submit "clear and convincing" evidence in order to rebut the presumption that the case was filed in bad faith. Here, the evidence submitted by Debtor indicates that she is now receiving family support. The evidence submitted by Debtor does not provide any detail regarding the source, amount, or duration of the family support now received. Therefore, Debtor has not provided any "clear and convincing" evidence establishing a change in financial circumstances between the dismissal of the previous case and the filing of the instant case.


Additionally, the Court notes that Judge Houle’s self-calendaring procedures require that motions to continue the automatic stay which

11:00 AM

CONT...


Roshanda Jeannen Dodds


Chapter 13

are served on shortened time be served on secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, Debtor has not complied with this service requirement.

Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Roshanda Jeannen Dodds Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

Roshanda Jeannen Dodds Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-20022


Katina Deneen Edwards


Chapter 13


#2.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real Property located at 27183 Lasso Way, Corona, CA 92883


MOVANT: KATINA DENEEN EDWARDS


EH   


Docket 12


Tentative Ruling:

12/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) provides for a statutory presumption that a case was filed in bad faith when a debtor had a case dismissed in the previous year after failing to perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the court. Here, Debtor’s previous case was dismissed for failure to make plan payments on May 2, 2019. Therefore, the instant case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Section 362(c)(3)(C) requires that Debtor submit "clear and convincing" evidence in order to rebut the presumption that the case was filed in bad faith. Here, the evidence submitted by Debtor indicates that four months before her case was dismissed, she was injured at work. Thereafter, Debtor received disability within a month. Nevertheless, approximately three months later, Debtor’s case was dismissed. Debtor has not provided any "clear and convincing" evidence establishing a change in financial circumstances between the dismissal of the previous case and the filing of the instant case. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

11:00 AM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Katina Deneen Edwards


Chapter 13

Katina Deneen Edwards Represented By Paul Y Lee

Movant(s):

Katina Deneen Edwards Represented By Paul Y Lee

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19946


Gary Ellison and Rachelle Malbrough


Chapter 13


#3.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real and personal property


MOVANT: GARY AND RACHELLE ELLISON


EH   


Docket 17


Tentative Ruling:

12/10/19


Service: Improper Opposition: None


As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Judge Houle’s miscellaneous instructions state: "If a secured creditor has filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in a prior case, Judge Houle also requires that counsel for the secured creditor be served with the motion to continue the automatic stay." Here, HSBC Bank, USA filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in Debtors’ previous case and was not served with the instant motion.


Turning to the merits, the Court notes that, as a preliminary matter, Debtors have improperly requested that the automatic stay be imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4), rather than continued under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3). While Rachel Malbrough had a previous Chapter 13 case dismissed on July 3, 2019, and Debtors filed a subsequent Chapter 7 case, the Debtors’ subsequent Chapter 7 case was not dismissed. Because § 362(c)(4) is only triggered if multiple cases were dismissed in the prior year, it does not apply in this situation.


Construing the motion as a motion to continue the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), the Court notes that the case dismissed in the previous year was only filed by Rachel Malbrough. The Court notes that there is a split of authority regarding

11:00 AM

CONT...


Gary Ellison and Rachelle Malbrough


Chapter 13

whether the automatic stay applies to a joint debtor who was a non-filing spouse in the previous case. While the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel acknowledges that it is the minority position on the issue, the Court agrees with Judge Saltzman’s reasoning outlined in In re Reswick, 446 B.R. 362, 369-70 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2011), and is of the position that the automatic stay only terminates with regard to the spouse who filed the previously dismissed petition. Therefore, in this case, the automatic stay will not expire after thirty days with respect to Gary Ellison.


A second rather unique issue is present here because the affected creditor, HSBC Bank USA National Association ("Creditor"), filed a relief from stay motion that was withdrawn in Rachel Malbrough’s previously dismissed Chapter 13 case, but also filed a relief from stay motion that was granted in the now-discharged Chapter 7 case. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(ii) provides for a rebuttable presumption of bad faith


as to any creditor that commenced an action under subsection (d) in a previous case in which the individual was a debtor if, as of the date of dismissal of such case, that action was still pending or had been resolved by terminating, conditioning, or limited the stay as to actions of such creditor.


(emphasis added). This provision does not appear to be triggered in this case because Debtors’ previous Chapter 7 case was not dismissed, and the relief from stay filed in the dismissed Chapter 13 case was withdrawn prior to being resolved. Therefore, not only have Debtors mischaracterized this motion as a motion to impose the automatic stay, Debtors have misidentified the statutory provision which triggers a presumption that the case was filed in bad faith.


Turning to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i), the provision which provides for a general presumption of bad faith as to all creditors, the Court notes that the unique nature of the previous dismissal creates a question of whether this statutory presumption is triggered. While the instant motion states that the previous case was dismissed for failure to appear at a status conference, which may have proximately caused the dismissal, the Court notes that the status conference was set by the presiding judge due to Rachel Malbrough’s postpetition default on direct payments to Creditor, which, in the order setting the status conference, the judge referred to as a default "under a material

11:00 AM

CONT...


Gary Ellison and Rachelle Malbrough


Chapter 13

provision" of a "confirmed chapter 13 plan." [Dkt. No. 43, case 6:17-

bk-18055-WJ]. Additionally, the order setting the status conference explicitly required that a brief or declaration be filed if Rachel Malbrough did not intend to convert her case to a Chapter 7 case, so the failure to file such brief would appear to fall within the scope of § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(aa), generating a presumption of bad faith as to all creditors.


Turning to whether Debtors have rebutted the statutory presumption of bad faith, In re Elliott-Cook, 357 B.R. 811 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006) states the following, "the types of factors to be considered make it clear that two issues are very significant for purposes of determining good faith under § 362(c)(3): (1) why the previous plan failed, and (2) what has changed so that the present plan is likely to succeed." 357 B.R. at 815. Here, the previous plan failed because Rachel Malbrough fell behind on her postpetition payments to Creditor, the Court set a status conference regarding the default, and Rachel Malbrough did not take any steps to respond to the order. The Court does note though that the eventual withdrawal of the motion for relief from the automatic stay seems to imply that Rachel Malbrough may have cured the postpetition default.


Nevertheless, while the declaration of Rachel Malbrough, who filed her previous Chapter 13 case pro se, says she was unaware of Judge Johnson’s order and had been traveling across the country to assist her father with his medical issues, there are two simpler reasons why the reasons for the failure of the previous plan are not likely to reoccur here: (1) Debtors are not pro se in the instant case; and (2) this Court does not set Chapter 13 status conferences. More specifically, the reasons for the dismissal of the previous case would not have generated a dismissal if Rachel Malbrough was not required to appear for a status conference. Therefore, applying the standard from In re Elliott-Cook, the Court deems Debtors to have adequately rebutted the statutory presumption that the instant case was filed in bad faith.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gary Ellison Represented By

Todd L Turoci

11:00 AM

CONT...


Gary Ellison and Rachelle Malbrough


Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Rachelle Malbrough Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Gary Ellison Represented By

Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci

Rachelle Malbrough Represented By Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19922


Angela Clarice Atou


Chapter 13


#4.00 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate Real and personal property


MOVANT: ANGELA CLARICE ATOU


EH   


Docket 13


Tentative Ruling:

12/10/19


Service: Improper Opposition: None


As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Judge Houle’s miscellaneous instructions state: "If a secured creditor has filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in a prior case, Judge Houle also requires that counsel for the secured creditor be served with the motion to continue the automatic stay." Here, Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in Debtor’s previous case and was not served with the instant motion.


Turning to the merits, while the Court finds the legal analysis provided by Debtor to be accurate and helpful, the Court does not consider the evidence submitted by Debtor to be sufficient to meet the "clear and convincing" standard delineated in 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C).


As articulated in a case relied upon by Debtor, In re Elliott-Cook, 357 B.R. 811 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006), "the types of factors to be considered make it clear that two issues are very significant for purposes of determining good faith under § 362(c)(3):

(1) why the previous plan failed, and (2) what has changed so that the present plan is likely to succeed." 357 B.R. at 815. And, as stated in the other case primarily relied upon by Debtor, "[t]he movant must provide detailed, competent [] evidence sufficient

11:00 AM

CONT...


Angela Clarice Atou


Chapter 13

to satisfy all elements of § 362(c)(3)(B) and, if applicable, to rebut the presumption of bad faith in §[] 362(c)(3)(C)(i) and (ii)." In re Castaneda, 342 B.R. 90, 96 (Bankr.

S.D. Cal. 2006). The evidence must be "so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the case." Id.


Here, the motion asserts that Debtor’s previous case failed due to medical issues. The motion, however, does not provide any evidence regarding the nature and severity of the medical issues, and, most importantly, whether those medical issues are likely to reoccur during the pendency of a Chapter 13 case. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci

Movant(s):

Angela Clarice Atou Represented By Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci Todd L Turoci

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19853


Marlejan Josue Alcaraz and Maria De Los Angeles Alcaraz


Chapter 7


#5.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 HONDA CIVIC, VIN: 2HGF C1F7 1HH6 54137


MOVANT: HONDA LEASE TRUST


EH   


Docket 10


Tentative Ruling:

12/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(1)(A) provides:


(h)(1) In a case in which the debtor is an individual, the stay provided by subsection (a) is terminated with respect to personal property of the estate or of the debtor securing in whole or in part a claim, or subject to an unexpired lease, and such personal property shall no longer be property of the estate if the debtor fails within the applicable time set by section 521(a)(2) –

(A) to file timely any statement of intention required under section 521(a)(2) with respect to such personal property or to indicate in such statement that the debtor will either surrender such personal property or retain it and, if retaining such personal property, either redeem such personal property pursuant to section 722, enter into an agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c) applicable to the debt secured by such personal property, or assume such unexpired lease pursuant to section 365(p) if the trustee does not do so, as

11:00 AM

CONT...


Marlejan Josue Alcaraz and Maria De Los Angeles Alcaraz

applicable;


Chapter 7


(emphasis added). Here, Debtors’ statement of intention indicates that they will not assume the lease. Therefore, the automatic stay has terminated as a matter of law. While 11 U.S.C. § 365(d) allows the Chapter 7 Trustee to assume a lease within sixty days of the petition date, 11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(2) requires that the Trustee file a motion to prevent the automatic stay termination outlined in § 362(h)(1). Such a motion not having been filed in this case, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Marlejan Josue Alcaraz Represented By Anerio V Altman

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria De Los Angeles Alcaraz Represented By Anerio V Altman

Movant(s):

HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian

Trustee(s):

Arturo Cisneros (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19648


Jamie Lynn Vieira-Ceron Hernandez


Chapter 7


#6.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2018 Ford EcoSport, VIN: MAJ3P1TE9JC202086


MOVANT: FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC


EH   


Docket 11


Tentative Ruling:

12/10/2019


Service is Proper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. § 362(h)(1)(A) provides:


(h)(1) In a case in which the debtor is an individual, the stay provided by subsection (a) is terminated with respect to personal property of the estate or of the debtor securing in whole or in part a claim, or subject to an unexpired lease, and such personal property shall no longer be property of the estate if the debtor fails within the applicable time set by section 521(a)(2) –

(A) to file timely any statement of intention required under section 521(a)(2) with respect to such personal property or to indicate in such statement that the debtor will either surrender such personal property or retain it and, if retaining such personal property, either redeem such personal property pursuant to section 722, enter into an agreement of the kind specified in section 524(c) applicable to the debt secured by such personal property, or assume such unexpired lease pursuant to section 365(p) if the trustee does not do so, as

11:00 AM

CONT...


Jamie Lynn Vieira-Ceron Hernandez

applicable;


Chapter 7


(emphasis added). Here, Debtors did not address the subject collateral in the statement of intention or in the schedules. Therefore, the automatic stay has terminated as a matter of law. The Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jamie Lynn Vieira-Ceron Hernandez Represented By

James P Doan

Movant(s):

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By

Sheryl K Ith

Trustee(s):

Lynda T. Bui (TR) Pro Se

11:00 AM

6:19-19015


Isaac Santillan


Chapter 13


#7.00 Motion for Relief from Stay MOVANT: BERNARDO GAMBOA

EH   


Docket 17

Tentative Ruling: 12/10/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes.


On October 14, 2019, Isaac Santillan ("Debtor") filed a Chapter 13 voluntary petition.


On November 14, 2019, Bernardo Gamboa ("Movant") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, seeking to continue pending state court litigation relating to claims for: (1) fraud; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) constructive fraud; (4) wrongful eviction – in tort; (5) escrow malfeasance; (6) deceit and fraud; (7) cancellation of instruments; (8) rescission; (9) money had and received; (10) conversion; (11) conspiracy; and (12) declaratory relief. The parties to the state court litigation have been engaged in extensive discovery and Movant’s motion alleges that Debtor has been uncooperative during that process. Movant asserts that the filing of the instant bankruptcy case was merely a delay tactic by Debtor. Movant also asserts that Debtor listed few creditors in the case commencement documents, although the Court notes that Debtor did schedule a material amount of unsecured debt in Schedule F. More importantly, Movant asserts that the state court litigation includes non-debtor parties, from whom Movant primarily seeks recovery. Finally, Movant argues that the mandatory abstention rules in 28 U.S.C. § 1334 applies to this situation. The Court notes that trial in state court is currently scheduled for February 25, 2020.


On November 26, 2019, Debtor filed his opposition. Debtor’s argument in opposition is not exactly clear, although Debtor certainly disputes whether Movant has met his

11:00 AM

CONT...


Isaac Santillan


Chapter 13

burden and disputes the merits of the state court litigation and whether it was appropriate to include Debtor as a defendant in the litigation.


The Court notes that while Movant argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) applies here, and Debtor does not raise an argument otherwise, a finding that mandatory abstention is appropriate does not automatically result in relief from stay. See, e.g., In re Conejo Enters., Inc., 96 F.3d 346, 352 (9th Cir. 1996) ("First, a finding that mandatory abstention applies to the underlying state action does not preclude denial of relief from

§ 362’s automatic stay.").


When considering a motion for relief from the automatic stay to pursue a non- bankruptcy action, the Court considers the Curtis factors:


(1) Whether the relief will result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; (2) the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established to hear the particular cause of action and whether that tribunal has the expertise to hear such cases; (5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the good or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditor’s committee and other interested parties; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor under Section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to the point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the "balance of hurt."


In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 844-45 (C.D. Cal. 2015). In Roger, the Court further

11:00 AM

CONT...

stated:


Isaac Santillan


Chapter 13


The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending litigation to continue in another forum. While the Curtis factors are widely used to determine the existence of cause, not all of the factors are relevant in every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight.

According to the court in Curtis, the most important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Even slight interference with the administration may be enough to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit. That said, some cases involving the automatic stay provision do not mention the Curtis factors at all.

Nevertheless, although the term "cause" is not defined in the Code, courts in the Ninth Circuit have granted relief from stay under § 362(d)

  1. when necessary to permit pending litigation to be concluded in another forum if the non-bankruptcy suit involves multiple parties or is ready for trial.


    Id. at 845 (quotations and citations omitted). As is typically the case, "[t]he record does not indicate that Curtis factors 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, or 9 are at issue in this case, nor do the parties argue to the contrary." Id.


    It would appear that all of the remaining Curtis factors weigh in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. First, the state court trial would result in a complete resolution of the issues, while holding an evidentiary hearing or another proceeding in bankruptcy court would only result in a partial resolution. Second, judicial economy and efficiency is best served by having the state court litigation occur in a single forum, while this Court does not have jurisdiction over the non-debtor defendants. Third, Movant has agreed that collection on any resulting judgment in the state court case would be stayed while Debtor is in bankruptcy, with Movant retaining the ability to file

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Isaac Santillan


    Chapter 13

    a proof of claim, thereby avoiding interference with the bankruptcy case or any prejudice to creditors. Fourth, because the state court litigation was filed approximately twenty months ago and is less than three months away from trial, the 11th Curtis factor weighs in favor of relief from stay. Finally, the Court is inclined to conclude that the balance of harm favors granting relief from stay because it simply is not equitable to bifurcate a state court lawsuit, composed of solely state court causes of action, that has several non-debtor defendants, and that has been pending for nearly twenty months. If Movant prevails on the fraud claim and timely files a complaint for non- dischargeability, application of collateral estoppel would be the most effective path to a non-dischargeability judgment, as opposed to a trial in bankruptcy court on fraud.


    While Debtor argues that Movant has not met his burden of proof, the details of Debtor’s argument are less than clear. This district’s form relief from stay motion includes six different commonly applicable grounds for relief from stay, five of which Movant asserts are applicable here. Even excluding Movant’s argument that the case was filed in bad faith, Movant has identified four different commonly applicable grounds, and Debtor has not really provided an argument in opposition, other than to dispute the merits of the state court litigation as to Debtor. But the state court litigation has been pending for twenty months; if Movant does not have a colorable claim, then Debtor had and still has ample opportunity to raise that issue in state court.


    The Court is inclined to GRANT request for relief pursuant to § 362(d)(1). GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 6. DENY request for relief under ¶ 7 because it is not clear what Movant is requesting in that section.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Isaac Santillan Represented By Jenny L Doling

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Isaac Santillan


    Chapter 13

    Bernardo Gamboa Represented By Larry Fabrizi

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-18992


    Grizelda Melgoza


    Chapter 7


    #8.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: 2017 NISSAN MAXIMA // 1N4AA6AP1HC419135


    MOVANT: FIRST TECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION


    EH   


    Docket 13


    Tentative Ruling:

    12/10/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Grizelda Melgoza Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo

    Movant(s):

    First Tech Federal Credit Union Represented By Nichole Glowin

    Trustee(s):

    Howard B Grobstein (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-15328


    Angel Victoriano and Maura Guzman


    Chapter 13


    #9.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 4526 Berkley Avenue, Hemet, CA 92544


    MOVANT: DITECH FINANCIAL LLC


    EH   


    Docket 27


    Tentative Ruling:

    12/10/19


    Service: Okay Opposition: None


    Debtors had a previous Chapter 13 case dismissed on June 6, 2019. Pursuant to the operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A), the automatic stay, absent further order of the Court, was set to terminate on July 18, 2019. Debtors not having filed a motion to continue the automatic stay, the stay expired on July 18, 2019. Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion as MOOT.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Angel Victoriano Represented By Edward T Weber

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Maura Guzman Represented By Edward T Weber

    Movant(s):

    Ditech Financial LLC Represented By

    11:00 AM

    CONT...


    Trustee(s):


    Angel Victoriano and Maura Guzman

    Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle


    Chapter 13

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:18-11346


    Jeffrey R Powell


    Chapter 13


    #10.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 33620 Oak Drive, Hemet, CA 92545


    MOVANT: WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB


    EH   


    Docket 42


    Tentative Ruling:

    12/10/2019


    Service is Proper Opposition: None


    The Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). GRANT relief from Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT requests under ¶¶ 2 and 3.


    APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Jeffrey R Powell Represented By David L Nelson

    Movant(s):

    Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Represented By

    Kristin A Zilberstein

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-14469


    Mario Timothy Velasquez and Susan Lorraine Velasquez


    Chapter 13


    #11.00 CONT Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 109 West Rancho Road, Corona, California 92882


    MOVANT: BANK OF AMERICA NA


    From: 11/12/19 EH       

    Docket 45

    Tentative Ruling: Tentative Ruling:

    11/12/19


    Service is Proper Opposition: Debtor


    Parties to discuss amount of arrears. Furthermore, parties to apprise the court on adequate protection discussions, if any.


    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Mario Timothy Velasquez Represented By Paul Y Lee

    Joint Debtor(s):

    Susan Lorraine Velasquez Represented By Paul Y Lee

    11:00 AM

    CONT...

    Movant(s):


    Mario Timothy Velasquez and Susan Lorraine Velasquez


    Chapter 13

    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Represented By Kelsey X Luu Gilbert R Yabes

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:17-11167


    Victor Thomas Lawton


    Chapter 13


    #12.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations REAL PROPERTY RE: 32272 Copper Crest Lane, Temecula, CA 92592


    MOVANT: M&T BANK


    EH   


    Docket 76

    *** VACATED *** REASON: ORDER ENTERED 12/10/19

    Tentative Ruling:

    APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

    Party Information

    Debtor(s):

    Victor Thomas Lawton Represented By Norma Duenas

    Movant(s):

    M&T Bank, its assignees and/or Represented By

    Kristin A Zilberstein Nancy L Lee

    Trustee(s):

    Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

    11:00 AM

    6:19-19823


    David Anthony Meisland


    Chapter 13


    #12.10 Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 26818 Montseratt Court Murrieta, CA 92563


    MOVANT: DAVID ANTHONY MEISLAND


    EH       


    Docket 26


    Tentative Ruling:

  2. Requiring Status Report EH   

    Docket 1


    Tentative Ruling:

  3. April 17, 2020 for Debtors’ Chapter 11 plan to be confirmed.


On November 15, 2019, Debtors filed their disclosure statement and Chapter 11 plan. On November 19, 2019, Debtors filed a motion for approval of their disclosure statement, which is set for hearing on January 7, 2020. Debtors also filed a motion to extend the deadline to have their Chapter 11 plan confirmed. Debtors request that the deadline to confirm their Chapter 11 plan be extended to April 17, 2020.


DISCUSSION



11 U.S.C. § 1129(e) provides:


In a small business case, the court shall confirm a plan that complies with the applicable provisions of this title and that is filed in accordance with section 1121(e) not later than 45 days after the plan is filed unless the time for confirmation is extended in accordance with section 1121(e)(3).


11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(3) provides that requirements for extended the deadline set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(e). Here, Debtors have satisfied the requirements set forth in § 1121(e)(3). Specifically, (1) Debtors have provided adequate notice of their motion to extend the § 1129(e) deadline; (2) the Court deems it more likely than not that Debtors will confirm their Chapter 11 plan within a reasonable period of time; (3) Debtors have identified a new proposed deadline, April 17, 2020; and (4) Debtors’ motion is timely.


Additionally, the Court notes that its scheduling order entered on November 1, 2019, could be construed as extending the § 1129(e) deadline.

2:00 PM

CONT...


Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc.


Chapter 11


Finally, the Court has not received any opposition to the instant motion, which the Court deems consent to the relief requested pursuant to Local Rule

9013-1(h).


TENTATIVE RULING



The Court is inclined to GRANT the motion, extending the deadline for Debtors to have their Chapter 11 plan confirmed to April 17, 2020.


APPEARANCES WAIVED. Movant to lodge order within seven days. If oral or written opposition is presented at the hearing, the hearing may be continued.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein

Movant(s):

Woodcrest Ace Hardware Inc. Represented By

Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein Robert B Rosenstein

2:00 PM

6:19-17537


Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


Chapter 11


#16.00 Notice of motion and motion for relief from the automatic stay with supporting declarations PERSONAL PROPERTY RE: Twenty-five (25) 2012 Wabash Dry Van Trailers; Thirty-seven (37) 2017 Wabash Trailers; Two (2) 2012 Great Dane Dry Van Trailers; Two (2) 2015 Volvo Trucks with Proof of Service. (Crastz, Jennifer)


MOVANT: WELLS FARGO EQUIPMENT FINANCE INC


Also #17 & #18 EH   

Docket 55

Tentative Ruling: 12/10/2019

Service: Proper Opposition: Yes


Debtor’s opposition having been filed six days late and the opposition conceding that Debtor is unable to make its ordered adequate protection payments, which already appear to have been half the contractual payment, until the month of February, the Court is inclined to GRANT relief from stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).

GRANT waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) stay. GRANT request under ¶ 2.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jauregui Trucking, Inc. Represented By Andrew S Bisom

Movant(s):

Wells Fargo Equipment Finance Represented By

2:00 PM

CONT...


Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


Jennifer Witherell Crastz


Chapter 11

2:00 PM

6:19-17537


Jauregui Trucking, Inc.


Chapter 11


#17.00 CONT Emergency Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Authorization to use Cash Collateral


From: 9/4/19, 10/1/19, 11/12/19 Also #16 & #18

EH       


Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:


Debtor(s):


Party Information

Joe A Pickens II Represented By William Radcliffe

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

1:00 PM

6:19-20173


Roshanda Jeannen Dodds


Chapter 13


#78.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 9658 Bella Vista Dr., Morongo Valley, CA 92256


MOVANT: ROSHANDA JEANNEN DODDS


From: 12/10/19 EH   

Docket 9


Tentative Ruling:

12/10/2019


Service is Improper Opposition: None


11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(C)(i)(II)(cc) provides for a statutory presumption that a case was filed in bad faith when a debtor had a case dismissed in the previous year after failing to perform the terms of a plan confirmed by the court. Here, Debtor’s previous case was dismissed for failure to make plan payments on October 31, 2019. Therefore, the instant case is presumed to have been filed in bad faith. Section 362(c)(3)(C) requires that Debtor submit "clear and convincing" evidence in order to rebut the presumption that the case was filed in bad faith. Here, the evidence submitted by Debtor indicates that she is now receiving family support. The evidence submitted by Debtor does not provide any detail regarding the source, amount, or duration of the family support now received. Therefore, Debtor has not provided any "clear and convincing" evidence establishing a change in financial circumstances between the dismissal of the previous case and the filing of the instant case.

1:00 PM

CONT...


Roshanda Jeannen Dodds


Chapter 13

Additionally, the Court notes that Judge Houle’s self-calendaring procedures require that motions to continue the automatic stay which are served on shortened time be served on secured creditors pursuant to FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 7004. Here, Debtor has not complied with this service requirement.

Therefore, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion. APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Roshanda Jeannen Dodds Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Movant(s):

Roshanda Jeannen Dodds Represented By Nicholas M Wajda

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se

1:00 PM

6:19-20474


Victor Manuel Rosales


Chapter 13


#79.00 CONT Notice of Motion and Motion in Individual Case for Order Imposing a Stay or Continuing the Automatic Stay as the Court Deems Appropriate 9215 Trovita Cir, Riverside, CA 92508


MOVANT: VICTOR MANUEL ROSALES


From: 12/17/19 EH       

Docket 8

Tentative Ruling:

TENTATIVE RULING:


12/17/19


Service: Proper Opposition: None


The Court has reviewed the motion. The notice was proper, and no opposition has been filed. Debtor declares that his prior case was dismissed because he was injured at work and placed on light-duty. Debtor provided a statement of earning showing that he worked less than full-time in a two-week period; however, he declared he was injured for a longer period of time, about six months. Evidence here should establish the prior payment before injury, the reduced amount during injury, and the new amount of full pay, as well as evidence of injury.


The evidence provided by the Debtor does not rebut the presumption pursuant to 11

U.S.C § 362(c)(4) that the case was filed in good faith regarding Debtor being able to pay creditors in full. Thus, the Court is inclined to DENY the motion or continue for further evidence.


APPEARANCES REQUIRED.

Party Information

1:00 PM

CONT...

Debtor(s):


Victor Manuel Rosales


Chapter 13

Victor Manuel Rosales Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

Movant(s):

Victor Manuel Rosales Represented By Marjorie M Johnson

Trustee(s):

Rod Danielson (TR) Pro Se