9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 1/31/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 12/6/2018 (XX) - td (12/6/2018)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01187 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Another Summons Issued 11/7/2018; Status Conference Set for 1/31/2019 at 9:30 a.m. (xx) - td (11/7/2018)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
10:00 AM
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC VS.
DEBTORS FR: 12-6-18
Docket 52
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Cornelio Fernandez Alvarez Represented By Neda Mobassery
Joint Debtor(s):
Sulma Leyda Rivas Represented By Neda Mobassery
Movant(s):
Ditech Financial LLC Represented By Darlene C Vigil
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK NA VS.
DEBTOR FR: 12-6-18
Docket 72
- NONE LISTED -
December 6, 2018
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
January 10, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Rocio Lopez Namdar Represented By Anerio V Altman
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Sean C Ferry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 46
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant motion with co-debtor relief and without 4001(a)(3) waiver. Basis for Tentative Ruling
Though Debtor now claims the property has a value of $750,000, there is no credible evidence of such. On April 6, 2018, Debtor filed schedules indicating a value of only $693,275. Less than two weeks later, on April 18, 2018, Debtor listed the property for $750,000. Nearly nine months later,there is no evidence that Debtor has received any offers at the list price (or any other price). This undermines Debtor's assertion that the property has a value of $750,000.
Debtor and Debtor's counsel are not being forthcoming regarding the list price of $750,000. According to the website of Debtor's agent, Blaine Loudenback, on Zillow.com, the subject listing was reduced from $750,000 to
$729,000 on November 6, 2018, more than six weeks prior to the filing of the Opposition. Apparently no offers have been received for the reduced list price.
10:00 AM
Debtor is not able to make current payments.
Debtor(s):
David Ramos Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Bosco Credit, LLC, its successors Represented By
Kristin A Zilberstein
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 37
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Conrado P Del Rosario Represented By
Leroy Bishop Austin
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Raymond Clay Allen Represented By Mark A Pahor
Movant(s):
Cab West, LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS.
DEBTORS FR: 12-6-18
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
December 6, 2018
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
January 10, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Fidel Nunez Represented By
Michael D Franco
Joint Debtor(s):
Cita Nunez Represented By
Michael D Franco
Movant(s):
TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver on condition that Movant files, within 7 days of the hearing, documentary evidence of its beneficial interest in the subject property.
Special Note: None of the documents attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 reference Movant and no assignment to Movant is attached to the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Joseph John Munoz Represented By Louis J Esbin
10:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Maria Munoz Represented By Louis J Esbin
Movant(s):
THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; AND THOMAS S. CASEY, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Ashley Bui Represented By
Andrew Nguyen
Joint Debtor(s):
Richard Bui Represented By
Andrew Nguyen
Movant(s):
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Vincent V Frounjian
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver; deny request for co-debtor relief (not applicable in chapter 7 cases).
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Narendra Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
Joint Debtor(s):
Anshu Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Bill, Barbara Pisetsky Represented By Barry L O'Connor
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
OFF CALENDAR: Case dismissed by order entered 12/26/18 [docket # 16] --eas
January 10, 2019 [This tentative has been updated since original posting]
Deny motion as moot -- case dismissed on 12/26/18.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, no court appearance by the Movant is required.
Debtor(s):
Angie Cachu Represented By
Bruce A Boice
Movant(s):
SIHAM ALBABA Represented By Stephen C Duringer
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 379
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Per FRBP 9019, a chapter 7 trustee may seek bankruptcy court approval of a settlement agreement. Approval of a settlement agreement should be granted if the settlement terms are reasonable under the particular circumstances of the case, and among the factors considered are: (1) the probability of success in the litigation; (2) any impediments to collection; (3) the complexity, expense, inconvenience and delay of litigation, and (4) the interest of creditors with deference to their reasonable opinions. In re A & C Properties, 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). a court is not required "to decide the numerous questions of law and fact raised by a motion to compromise, but rather to determine whether the compromise falls below the threshold of reasonableness. In re Planned Protective Services, Inc., 130
B.R. 94, 99, fn. 7 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 1991), citing to In re WT. Grant Co., 699 F.2d 599, 608 (2nd Cir. 1983). "The Court does not substitute. its judgment for that of the trustee, but reviews the issues to see if the settlement falls below the lowest point of reasonableness." In re Martin, 212 B.R. 316, 319 (BAP 8th Cir. 1997). When applying the above standards, and "[i]n passing upon the proposed settlement, the Court must consider the principle that ‘law favors compromise.’" In re Carson, 82 B.R. 847, 853 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio
10:30 AM
1994)(citations omitted).
In this case, the Agreement between Debtor and Patrick is fair and equitable under the circumstances of this case and should be approved based upon the following:
Probability of Success In the Litigation
This factor weighs in favor of granting the Motion. The arguments raised by Bascom purport to be various grounds for disallowing the POC. The arguments are not persuasive, however, because:
The Court previously rejected Patrick’s argument that the shareholder loan owed to him should be deemed offset against the loan he owed to Debtor The Court ultimately relied on the existence of the shareholder loan to find that Debtor was insolvent at the time of the avoided transfers. See, Reply, p. 2-4.
While the Court sustained Bascom’s proof of claim based in part to the lacked a writing, Bascom misapplies the law of the case doctrine.
"The law of the case doctrine states that "when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case."... The doctrine grew out of the need to "maintain consistency and to avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single continuing lawsuit."...The doctrine "promotes the finality and efficiency of the judicial process by ‘protecting against the agitation of settled issues.’ ". § 7:1.Introduction, Bankr. Evid. Manual § 7:1 (2018 ed.)(Supreme Court citations omitted). "The law of the case doctrine is applicable to several different situations... Depending on the context to which it is applied, the doctrine has different effects. Id. at § 7:2 (citations omitted). Under the doctrine, a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case. Richardson v. US, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir.), amended, 860 F.2d 357 (9th Cir.1988). For the doctrine to apply, the issue in question must have been "decided explicitly or by necessary implication in [the] previous disposition."
10:30 AM
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. E.E.O.C., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.1982). Ordinarily, resolution of a legal issue is "law of the case." In re Tsurukawa, 287 B.R. 515, 518 (BAP 9th Cir. 2002).
In this case, the Court’s decision on whether Bascom’s proof of claim should be allowed is not law of the case on whether the POC should be allowed. Patrick has not demonstrated that the issues decided during the objection to Bascom’s proof of claim are similar to the issues to be decided in an objection to the POC. Furthermore, as argued by Patrick, if applicable, the law of the case may actually weigh in favor of denying any objection to the POC since the Court relied on the shareholder loan underlying the POC (and by implication, finding the shareholder loan was a valid loan) to find the insolvency element of Trustee’s avoidance actions.
Finally, the evidence in support of Bascom’s proof of is stark contrast to the supporting documents attached to the POC, which includes copies of checks with annotations stating that the check is a loan. Furthermore, per Trustee’s testimony, Trustee has reviewed additional documents that was supplied by Patrick in support of the POC. Mot, p. 8, ¶4.
Bascom’s final argument that the POC should be relegated to equity consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in In re Fitness Holdings Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 2013)(holding that court may recharacterize debtor under state law in the context of avoidance actions and is not governed by the subordination statute of § 510) is unpersuasive because not only is the cited case not applicable to the instant matter (the Motion is not setting an avoidance action), but Patrick has failed to provide any equitable grounds for subordinating the POC.
Based upon evidence presented to it, a court is not required "to decide the numerous questions of law and fact raised by a motion to compromise, but rather to determine whether the compromise falls below the threshold of reasonableness. (In re Planned Protective Services, Inc., 130 B.R. 94, 99, fn. 7 (Bankr.C.D.Cal. 1991). When applying the above standards, and "[i]n passing upon the proposed settlement, the Court must consider the principle that ‘law favors compromise.’" In re Carson, 82 B.R. 847, 853 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1994)(citations omitted).
10:30 AM
In sum, while the Court is not required to decide all the numerous questions of law and fact, the unpersuasive nature of Bascom’s arguments lends support to Trustee’s business judgment that the majority of the POC is valid and settlement of any objection to the portion that may be invalid is in the best interest of the estate. See, Mot., p. 9. ¶ 5.
Impediments to Collection
The Motion did not address this factor. Nonetheless, since the underlying litigation being settled is a potential claim objection, there would be no collection efforts. Thus, this factor is neutral.
The Complexity, Expense, Inconvenience and Delay of Litigation
This factor weights in favor of granting the Motion. Settlement is in the best interest of creditors because the costs incurred litigating any objection to the POC will likely outweigh the benefit to creditors. As noted by Trustee, the majority of the POC is supported by documentation and at issue is really only
$300,000 to $400,000. See, Mot. p. 9, ¶¶ 6-7. The reduction of the POC in the amount of $347,000 and the substantial savings of administrative expenses warrant approval of the Agreement. See, Mot. p. 10, ¶ 8. A prompt resolution of this potential objection to the POC will also allow Trustee to continue to administer the estate. Id. at p. 9, ¶7.
The Interest of Creditors with Deference to Their Reasonable Opinions
Settlement is in the best interest of creditors because the costs incurred litigating any objection to the POC will likely outweigh the benefit to creditors. As noted by Trustee, the majority of the POC is supported by documentation and at issue is only $300,000 to $400,000. See, Mot. p. 9, ¶¶ 6-7. The reduction of the POC in the amount of $347,000 and the substantial savings of administrative expenses warrant approval of the Agreement. See, Mot. p. 10, ¶ 8. Finally, no other creditor other than Bascom (whose claim objection was prosecuted by Patrick) has objected to the Motion.
10:30 AM
In sum, 3 out of the 4 A/C factors weigh in favor of approval of the Agreement
Evidentiary objections to Declaration of Douglas Patrick [Docket 379]
Overrule all objections except Objection #29 which is sustained.
Debtor(s):
Commercial Services Building Inc Represented By
Phillip B Greer
Trustee(s):
Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson Thomas J Polis
Robert M Dato Jason E Goldstein
10:30 AM
Docket 177
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2018
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to provide documentary evidence of the holder of the junior lienholder on the subject property by or before January 22, 2019 (with amended notice if necessary)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, Debtor has not provided any documentary evidence identifying the holder or authorized agent of the holder of the second deed of trust and, therefore, this court cannot ascertain whether service of this contested matter is proper.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 179
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2018
[This tentative ruling has been modified since its original posting]
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to 1) provide proper service on the current holder of the second deed of trust on the subject property, and 2) file documentary evidence identifying the holder of the second deed of trust by or before January 22, 2019.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Preliminary statement: The statements and evidence in support of this Motion are all over the place, making a coherent review of the same nearly impossible.
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, there are issues that need to be addressed:
Debtor represents that the first deed of trust was transferred from Express Capital Lending to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as servicer on April 19, 2019 and directs the court to Exhibit 1, which is the proof of claim filed by BofA, the presumed holder of the first deed of trust. However, documents attached to the proof of claim also seem to show that a) Express Capiral Lending
10:30 AM
assigned a note/deed of trust (not clear if it's the first or second) to Impac Funding Corp. [Exhibit 1, p.49] and b) Impac Funding Corp assigned its interest in the first deed of trust on April 19, 2012 (postpetition) to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as apparent servicer. [Exhibit 1, p. 50].
There is no documentation or other credible evidence that identifies Impac Funding Corporation, or any other entity, as the holder of the second deed of trust. Accordingly, the court cannot determine whether service of the Motion was proper.
Debtor needs do his research and determine the identity of the holder of the second deed of trust and properly serve that entity. Parenthetically, Debtor also needs to remit plan playments to such entity if it is someone other than Impac.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
Docket 823
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/31/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 1/3/2019 (XX) - td (1/3/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 144
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant motion on the terms requested by the chapter 13 trustee.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Bruce R Fink Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01375 Sotelo et al v. Ramirez et al
FR: 9-20-18; 10-18-18; 11-15-18
Docket 132
- NONE LISTED -
October 18, 2018
Continue hearing to November 15, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. as a holding date; Movant to file supplemental declaration with exhibits by November 1, 2018. Continue status conference to the same date/time (updated status report not required.) (XX)
The court is inclined to grant the Motion but needs to review the following documents before rendering a decision:
An executed copy of the Ramirez Family Trust;
A copy of the Trust Transfer Deed transferring the Ramirez Family Trust's interest in the subject property to Movant;
A copy of the Quitclaim Deed transferring the subject property from Movant to the Olimpia Family Trust; and
A copy of the Olimpia Family Trust
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at
10:30 AM
today's hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018
Plaintiff needs to address the following:
Reviewing the documents attached to the original complaint filed by Counter-Defendants, not all of the Unperfected Liens were a grant of Debtor’s property (title was held by the Ramirez Family Trust at the time) because the Unperfected Liens were not granted by Luis in his capacity as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust.
The SE1 Deed was executed by "Jose Luis Ramirez and Family Steel Corporation" and not by Luis as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust. RJN, Ex. 1, (Ex. B of the Complaint).
The SE2 Deed was also executed by "Jose Luis Ramirez and Family Steel Corporation" and not by Luis as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust. RJN, Ex. 1, (Ex. D of the Complaint).
In light of the foregoing, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, a genuine issue of fact may remain with regards to SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed and in which capacity Luis granted those security interests. As such, Debtor is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the §§ 544(a)(3), § 550, and § 502(d) claims for relief only on the Veras Note.
Absent a satisfactory legal argument/explanation, the court would be inclined to grant summary adjudication as to the §§ 544(a)(3), § 550, and § 502(d) claims for relief only on the Veras Note and grant partial adjudication as to the first claim for relief in that the SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed were not recorded prior to Petition Date. The motion would be denied as to the balance.
10:30 AM
January 10, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant summary adjudication as to the §§ 544(a) (3), § 550, and § 502(d) claims for relief only as to the Veras Note and grant partial adjudication as to the first claim for relief in that the SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed were not recorded prior to Petition Date. Deny the balance of the relief requested.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The court is not persuaded by the supplemental brief filed December 23, 2018 [docket #147].
The court incorporates by reference herein, its November 15, 2018 tentative ruling. See above. In response to the November 15, 2018 tentative ruling, Debtor argues that the Motion should be granted because the face of the SE1 Deed and the SE2 Deed evidences that "the parties to that transactions intended that Debtor’s Property stand as security for these debts" so Salon Envios could assert an equitable lien in Debtor’s Property.
Supp. Br. at p. 3:3-5.
The counterargument that the face of the deeds evidences that "the parties to that transactions intended that Debtor’s Property stand as security" fails to address the issue of who the "parties to the transaction" truly are- Luis in his individual capacity or Luis as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust. In other words, even if Luis intended that the Property serve as collateral, Luis may not have the authority to grant an equitable lien if Luis was acting in his individual capacity because Luis did not hold title to the Property at the time. Further, and more importantly, the parties' "intent" is a factual issue and Luis intent to encumber the Property as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust cannot be gleamed as a matter of law simply from the face of the deeds that make no mention of the Ramirez Family Trust. Debtor’s cited legal authorities in the Supplemental Brief do not sufficiently support her position.
In Lentz v. Lentz, (1968) 267 CA2d 891, 894, the California Court of Appeal stated that, " To establish an equitable lien, appellant must
10:30 AM
demonstrate that her deceased husband not only intended to make the real property primary security for the debt to the insurance company and the insurance policy merely collateral security, but that he had the right to do so." (reversing grant of summary judgment imposing an equitable lien on real property because triable issue of fact remained as to decedent’s intent). In this case, Debtor has not established that Luis had the "right to" pledge the Property as security.
In Grappo v. Coventry Fin. Corp., (1991) 235 CA3d 496, 509 (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 509-510, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s claim for an equitable lien on real property on which ex-wife constructed a new home and appellant extended loans to ex- wife but never obtained a deed of trust. The court found that the parties did not intend to create a security interest in the property. Id. Unlike the instant case, however, the ex-wife’s right to pledge the property as security was not at issue because wife held title to the real property on which the new home was built. Id. at 500.
Finally, Huber v. Danning (In re Thomas), 147 B.R. 526, 529 (BAP 9th Cir.) does not support Debtor’s position because it is undisputed that a trustee may avoid an equitable interest in property under § 544(a)(3). Here, however, Debtor has not established that an equitable interest was created since Debtor has not established that Luis had a "right" to create an equitable lien in the Property.
Viewing the evidence, i.e., the face of the SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed, in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, a genuine issue of fact remains with regards to SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed and in which capacity Luis granted those security interests.
Debtor(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Miller
10:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
Jose Luis Ramirez Sr Represented By Christopher P Walker
Herman F Cea Pro Se
The Ramirez Family Trust Pro Se
Family Steel Corporation Pro Se
First American Title Insurance Pro Se
Olimpia Family Trust, Dated Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mayanin Sotelo Pro Se
Salon Envious, Inc. Pro Se
Aurelio Vera Pro Se
Faviola Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01375 Sotelo et al v. Ramirez et al
FR: 11-5-15; 12-17-15; 2-11-16; 9-1-16; 10-6-16; 11-10-16; 12-15-16; 1-19-16;
3-30-17; 5-11-17; 9-7-17; 10-5-17; 11-2-17; 11-30-17; 1-11-18; 2-22-18;
4-12-18; 6-21-18; 7-31-18; 10-18-18; 11-15-18
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Prosecution Entered 6/22/18; The Cross-Complaint will Remain for Prosecution by Cross-Plaintiffs - td (6/22/2018)
November 5, 2015
The court will likely issue an Order to Show Cause why it should not abstain from adjudicating this matter per 28 USC 1334(c)(1)
December 17, 2015
Based upon the briefs filed since the last status conference, the court will not abstain at this time. The court notes that Debtor has not served the cross- defendants with the cross-complaint.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required
February 11, 2016
Date to complete discovery: July 1, 2016
Pretrial Stipulation due date: August 18, 2016
10:30 AM
Pretrial Conference: Sept. 1, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing schedule, appearances at this hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
May 11, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to August 17, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; an amended joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by August 10, 2017; any substantive pretrial motion by party Ramirez must be filed no later than June 6, 2017 for a reserved hearing date of July 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. LBR briefing schedule for Summary Judgment Motions applies.
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
The Joint Pretrial Stipulation must follow the format set forth in LBR 7016-1(b) (2). The court will not accept two unilateral statements posing as a joint stipulation, i.e., no separation sections for "Plaintiff's Disputed Facts" and "Defendant's Disputed Facts."
Note: If the all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
November 2, 2017
Joint pretrial stipulation not timely filed per this court's order entered Sept. 29, 2017. Parties to appear and advise the court why sanctions of $100 should not be imposed on counsel for each party for failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
November 30, 2017
Joint pretrial stipulation not timely filed; updated status report re possible
10:30 AM
settlement not filed; impose sanctions against Plaintiff's attorney in the amount of $100 for failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
January 11, 2018
The parties are to appear and advise the court re the status of the possible settlement.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
February 22, 2018
Plaintiff to appear and advise the court why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file an updated status report as ordered by the court at the 1/11/18 hearing.
April 12, 2018
Continue status conference to June 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Court to issue order to show cause why this adversary should not be dismissed due to lack of prosecution ("OSC"), which OSC shall be heard on the same date/time as the continued status conference. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required and Defendants shall service notice of the continued status conference.
June 21, 2018
Take matter off calendar in light of the dismissal of the adversary proceeding.
10:30 AM
July 31, 2018
Continue as a status conference to October 18, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Updated status report must be filed by October 4, 2018. Any pretrial motion must be filed by September 13, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is waived; Cross-Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date.
October 18, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
NOTE: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
January 10, 2019
Cross complainant to advise the court how she wishes to proceed with the adversary in light of the court's ruling re #19 on today's calendar.
Debtor(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
Jose Luis Ramirez Sr Represented By Christopher P Walker
10:30 AM
Herman F Cea Pro Se
The Ramirez Family Trust Pro Se
Family Steel Corporation Pro Se
First American Title Insurance Pro Se
Olimpia Family Trust, Dated Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mayanin Sotelo Pro Se
Salon Envious, Inc. Pro Se
Aurelio Vera Pro Se
Faviola Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
[JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 56
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
William Bilderback Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Joint Debtor(s):
Jonelle Sellers Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
[WEILAND GOLDEN GOODRICH LLP, COUNSEL FOR THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 53
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
William Bilderback Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Joint Debtor(s):
Jonelle Sellers Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, LLP, ACCOUNTANTS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
William Bilderback Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Joint Debtor(s):
Jonelle Sellers Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 147
- NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Anavelia Prado Represented By Bruce A Boice
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 145
NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Anavelia Prado Represented By Bruce A Boice
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Summer M Shaw Jenny L Doling
10:30 AM
F.R.B.P. Rule 2017
Docket 22
NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant motion in part, deny in part: $1284 to be cancelled as excessive compensation, deny request for filing of 2016 statement as moot.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Attorney was to be paid $1895 multiple standard services, including preparation of schedules, SOFA and other required documents as well as attend 341(a) meeting(s), etc. Though Attorney filed the petition (which benefited Debtor), Attorney did not have to review or process other required documents or attend the 341(a) meeting. Accordingly, Attorney is not entitled to the full fee for services not rendered.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Michael Burke Represented By Ashishkumar Patel
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 12
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation Regarding Counsel's Fees Pursuant to U.S. Trustee's Motion Under 11 U.S.C. §329 Entered 12/27/2018 - td (12/27/2018 )
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joe Maurice Quintanilla Represented By Gary S Saunders
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 32
NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019 [Tentative ruling has been modified since original post]
Grant motion to extend time only if service to the insurance companies was proper. The court cannot ascertain from the proof of service whether the insurance companies listed on pages 4 and 5 of the Motion were properly served as their names do not appear on the list of served parties.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
10:30 AM
Docket 34
NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant motion to extend time.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
10:30 AM
Docket 36
NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant motion to extend time.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
10:30 AM
Docket 96
NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019
Grant motion under 11 U.S.C. 363(c).
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
(Set at SC held 9-20-18) FR: 12-11-18
Docket 544
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/29/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 1/8/2019 (XX) - td (1/9/2019)
December 11, 2018
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION ADAM MEISLIK
Special Note:
The evidentiary objections were reviewed using the evidentiary standard required for expert testimony in light of Judge Clarkson's Order entered on May 14, 2018 [docket #434] permitting Mr. Meislik's employment as Debtor's expert witness.
Specifically, the court considered FRE Rules 702 and 703 as well as the Advisory Committee Notes to the same regarding the appropriate application of the USSC's decision in Daubert v. Merril Dow Pharms, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993) in light of the amendments to Rules 702 and 703 in 2000.
As Rule 602 (lack of personal knowledge) does not apply to expert
2:00 PM
testimony under Rule 703, all objections to the Declaration under Rule 602 are overruled.
It is well-settled that an expert, in forming an opinion, may rely on evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible, such as hearsay. See, e.g., U.S. v. Vera, 1770 F.3d 1232, 1237 ("[A]n expert witness may offer opinions based on such inadmissible testimonial hearsay, as well as any other form of inadmissible evidence, if 'experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.' Fed.R.Evid. 703").
All evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Adam Meislik are overruled except as set forth below
Objection No. Ruling:
28 Sustained: speculation -- insufficient basis for opinion
Sustained: improper legal opinion/conclusion as to impairment and fair and equitable under Bankruptcy
Code.
Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "This treatment is fair and equitable for purposes of Section 1129(b)(2)(A)". Improper
opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert
testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "Accordingly . . . to the end of paragraph 37.
Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of
expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
2:00 PM
Sustained as to "Accordingly . . . to the end of paragraph 39.
Improper opinion/ legal conclusion.Beyond scope of
expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained. Argument. Relevance
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to first two sentences: "As demonstrated . . .
review
chapter 7 trustee for liquidation. Improper opinion/legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so
under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Overruled as to the balance of the testimony in Obj #51..
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "The Plan also meets the feasibility requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. In this regard, and". Improper opinion/legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Overruled as to the balance of the testimony in Obj. #56.
60 Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
2:00 PM
2 Overrule all objections
3
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
FR: 9-20-18 (Per Order Entered 10/16/18) FR: 12-11-18
Docket 558
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 1/29/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 1/8/2019 (XX) - td (1/9/2019)
September 20, 2018
Motion to Strike/Objection to Claim:
The court has not yet completed its review of this motion and related pleadings. The court understands that this motion has been pending for several months and that several hearings have been held re the same. The parties are to confirm that the issue necessitating oral testimony was ruled on by Judge Clarkson.
The court expects that this Motion might not be ruled upon prior to the Confirmation Hearing. Affects Objections to Claim #s 9, 11, 14 and 16.
Claim Objections:
Hearings to be set in 2019 re outstanding claim objections
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
(Set at SC held 9-20-18 ; See Statement/Doc. #603)
Docket 219
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/19/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Hearing Held 12/11/2018 (XX) - td (12/12/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michelle Mejia Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kayleen R Hittesdorf Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 5
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 12/17/2018 - td (12/17/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Russel A Wood Represented By Scott Kosner
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising From Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 11/26/2018 - liz (11/26/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Abel Yepes Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules,Statements, and/or Plan Entered 12/3/2018 - td (12/3/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Burke Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 12/3/2018 - td (12/3/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Florence Ann Woolbright Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eduardo Flores Barraza Represented By Edward A Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
David Maurice Denman Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rebecca M Mendez Represented By Bryn C Deb
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 11/26/2018 - td (11/27/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Susan Hyun Kyung Ham Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Scott T. Vu Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Thu M. Nguyen Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 33
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William Raymond Harvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Joint Debtor(s):
Akram Naieharvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 3
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 1/18/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (1/22/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Raymond Hal Hurst Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Carlos J Calvillo Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising From Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 10/26/2018. Case Closed 12/21/2018 - td (1/4/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 24
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jezabel Jurado Represented By Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bella Orion Represented By
Timothy McFarlin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Genevieve Romero Represented By Raymond Perez
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael P Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Joint Debtor(s):
Deborah J. Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 12/31/2018 - td (1/2/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marc David Finnie Represented By Stephen L Burton
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric Michael Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Joint Debtor(s):
Celena Renee Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nicole H. Hazlett Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Shahid Jamil Represented By
Brian J Soo-Hoo
Movant(s):
Shahid Jamil Represented By
Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 22
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric R. Kretzschmar Represented By Stephen Parry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Majid Nick Nikki Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Patrick Rupp Represented By Kaveh Ardalan
Joint Debtor(s):
Rogedola Geraldina Ajike Rupp Represented By Kaveh Ardalan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 26
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rojan Shahba Represented By David S Hagen
Joint Debtor(s):
Gholamreza Shahba Represented By David S Hagen
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 34
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Yolanda Vasquez Represented By Antonio John Ibarra
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 67
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gerardo Caravez Represented By Michael D Franco
Joint Debtor(s):
Rafaela Caravez Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 51
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kimberly Nadina Fisher Represented By Heather J Canning Barry E Borowitz
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 46
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 Filed 12/18/2018 - td (12/19/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Valerie E. LaHaye Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 11-27-18; 12-21-18
Docket 43
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Noe Trejo Represented By
Natalie A Alvarado
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 10-23-18; 11-27-18; 12-21-18
Docket 42
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Noe Trejo Represented By
Natalie A Alvarado
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 12-21-18
Docket 57
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Deborah Ann Brown Represented By
Ramiro Flores Munoz
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 52
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Christopher Quentin Chappell Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jesus M Razo Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 48
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 9-25-18; 10-23-18; 11-27-18; 12-21-18
Docket 83
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thomas Charles Dailey Jr Represented By Halli B Heston Ronald Appel Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 102
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bert Ranelycke-Svensson Represented By Scott Dicus
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 99
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thomas Winslor Eddy Represented By Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Colleen Marie Eddy Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 135
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtors' Request for Volulntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 12/12/2018 - td (12/12/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Peter Downs Represented By
Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Joint Debtor(s):
Kelli Jean Downs Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 60
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ranulfo Figueroa Represented By Sunita N Sood Seema N Sood
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Perry Zachary Represented By Joseph A Weber
Joint Debtor(s):
Erin Maureen Zachary Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 12-21-18
Docket 96
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jill Marie Lungren Represented By William P White Bruce D White
Joint Debtor(s):
Carlos Alfonso Lungren Represented By William P White
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 57
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Brian D. Thaler Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 10-23-18
Docket 51
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Brian Lee Head Represented By Alaa A Yasin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 82
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Anthony Telesio Represented By Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:00 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01042 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
U.S.C. §§542 and 543; (3) To avoid and recover fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11
U.S.C. §544(b) and 550, and California Civil Code §§3439.04(a)(1), 3439.07 and 3439.09; (4) To avoid and recover fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b) and 550, and California Civil Code §§3439.04(a)(2), 3439.07 and 3439.09;
To avoid and recover fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§548(a)(1)(A) and 550; (6) To avoid and recover fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a)(1)(B) and 550; (7) To preserve avoided transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 551; and (8) For injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §105
(Per hearing on P.I. held 9-6-18)
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: 1/24/2019 and 1/25/2019 Trial Dates Vacated and Shall Be Re-Scheduled at the 3/21/2019 Pre-trial Conference, Per Order Entered 12/11/2018 - td (12/11/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
9:00 AM
Mark Ziebold Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se Nationwide Life Insurance Company Pro Se Nationwide Life and Annuity Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01200 Marshack v. Lee, Dr.
[11 U.S.C. Section 550(a)(1), 1107(a), C.C.P. Section 309(a), 316(a) and (b), 339(1) and 343]
FR: 12-1-16; 4-13-17; 7-13-17; 9-21-17; 12-14-17; 2-15-18, 4-12-18
(Advanced from 6-14-18); 6-7-18; 8-2-18; 9-20-18; 11-15-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 1, 2016
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to April 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 30, 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
April 13, 2017
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to July 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 29 , 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve
9:30 AM
notice of the continued hearing date/time.
July 13, 2017
In light of potential settlement, continue Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 7, 2017 if the matter is not resolved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
September 21, 2017
Continue one final time to December 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date pending completion of settlement; update status report must be filed by November 30, 2017 if the matter is still pending as of such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
November 15, 2018
In light of the pending settlement, continue the status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 10, 2019. (XX)
Special note: I am looking forward to the consummation of this settlement -- hopefully sometime before my retirement.
Note: Unless Plaintiff has new information to report regarding the status of the settlement, appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue Status Conference to January 31, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on 9019 motion; updated status report not required.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
Donald Woo Lee, Dr. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01203 Marshack v. UIC Vein Center, Inc. et al
FR: 12-1-16; 4-13-17; 7-13-17; 9-21-17; 12-14-17; 2-15-18, 4-12-18
(Advanced from 6-14-18); 6-7-18; 8-2-18; 9-20-18; 11-15-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 1, 2016
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to April 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 30, 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
April 13, 2017
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to July 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 29 , 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
July 13, 2017
9:30 AM
In light of potential settlement, continue Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 7, 2017 if the matter is not resolved by such date. (XX)
September 21, 2017
Continue one final time to December 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date pending completion of settlement; update status report must be filed by November 30, 2017 if the matter is still pending as of such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
November 15, 2018
In light of the pending settlement, continue the status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 10, 2019. (XX)
Special note: I am looking forward to the consummation of this settlement -- hopefully sometime before my retirement.
Note: Unless Plaintiff has new information to report regarding the status of the settlement, appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
Continue Status Conference to January 31, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on 9019 motion; updated status report not required.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
UIC Vein Center, Inc. Pro Se
Michael Kim Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01143 Marshack v. Nguyen
FR: 10-11-18; 12-6-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 11, 2018
Continue pretrial conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; joint pretriial stipulation due on November 29, 2018.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
December 6, 2018
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by January 10, 2019, (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
Continue Status Conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by
9:30 AM
such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
AA-TEK Machining, Inc. Represented By Tina H Trinh
Defendant(s):
Natalie Nguyen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Kelly Zinser
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery Kelly Zinser
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01112 Herrera et al v. Blair
FR: 9-21-17; 5-3-18; 5-17-18; 9-6-18; 12-6-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference to 4/11/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 1/23/2019 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
September 21, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 28, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Mar. 30, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: May 3, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Apr. 26, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
September 6, 2018
No status report filed. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against counsel for plaintiffs for failure to do so.
Plaintiffs' counsel to appear and advise the court re the outcome of the mediation
9:30 AM
and the status of this adversary.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
December 6, 2018
Both counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant must appear and advise the court why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed against both counsel for failure to comply with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, to wit:
Plaintiffs' counsel has not prepared, transmitted or filed a joint pretrial stipulation as required by LBR 7016-1(c);
Defendant's counsel, having not received a timely draft of a JPS, has not filed or served a proposed pretrial stipulation in accordance with LBR 7016-1(e)(2); and
Neither counsel has advised this court whether the parties attended mediation and the outcome of the same or, if not, why the parties did not attend mediation.
Note: Appearance by all counsel at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly Zinser
Defendant(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Yvonne Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
9:30 AM
Dylan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Ethan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kristine A Thagard Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 430
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant motion under 362(d)(1).
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Movant(s):
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels
10:00 AM
Eric P Israel Aaron E de Leest
10:00 AM
M&T BANK AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 47
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Vincent Lopez Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
M&T Bank as Attorney in Fact for Represented By
Nancy L Lee
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant motion without waiver of 4001(a)(3) 14-day stay. Debtors' opposition is overruled for the following reasons:
By Debtors' own admission, they have failed to make payments since January 2017, or 24 months.
According to the Motion, Wells Fargo has not recorded a notice of default, meaning no foreclosure sale will take place for at least four months (not including any other applicable state law that might delay the foreclosure). Therefore, there is no reason not to grant the motion.
After taking into account costs of sale (8% or $108,000), there is no equity in the property.
Debtor has monthly negative income of $2700.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Shar E Kanamouie Represented By Majid Safaie
Joint Debtor(s):
Rachel Kanamouie Represented By Majid Safaie
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Austin P Nagel
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Eugene Robledo Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Movant(s):
BANK OF THE WEST Represented By
Mary Ellmann Tang
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK NA VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 12-6-18; 1-10-19
Docket 72
NONE LISTED -
December 6, 2018
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
January 10, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
January 24, 2019
Off Calendar.
This matter appears to have been resolved by a stipulation filed on or about 1/9/19 [Docket #76]. If the matter is not resolved, Movant will need to appear at this hearing.
Debtor(s):
Rocio Lopez Namdar Represented By Anerio V Altman
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association Represented By Sean C Ferry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(OST Entered 1/16/2019)
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant motion on condition that that Debtor file, within 24 hours of today's hearing, a declaration setting forth the following information: 1) name of employer and amount of monthly income derived from the second job mentioned in the motion but not listed in Debtor's Schedule I, and 2) specific circumstances re the rental income listed in Schedule I (e.g., whether there is a lease agreement, the rental term and whether the location of the rental).
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Bertha Zapata Represented By Gary Polston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. SPECTOR, ATTORNEYS FOR THE REORGANIZED DEBTOR]
Docket 564
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
10:30 AM
Docket 136
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtors' Request for Volulntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 12/12/2018 - td (12/12/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Peter Downs Represented By
Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Joint Debtor(s):
Kelli Jean Downs Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant motion, less $2,614 in attorneys fees and costs as requested and less any amount of fees previously paid by defendant, if any.
The reduction in attorneys fees reflects reductions previously ordered by this court re the September 21, 2017 hearing (see tentative ruling).
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 59
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Barry Eugene Young Sr. Represented By David A Tilem
Joint Debtor(s):
Yicel Maldonado Young Represented By David A Tilem
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, LLC, ACCOUNTANT FOR TRUSTEE]
Docket 56
January 24, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Barry Eugene Young Sr. Represented By David A Tilem
Joint Debtor(s):
Yicel Maldonado Young Represented By David A Tilem
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether
Debtor(s):
Dale Bundy Represented By
Joseph C Rosenblit
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 431
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant motion to permit Movant to proceed with its state law remedies to obtain possession of the subject premises.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Based upon the evidence presented by Movant, there is no evidence that Debtor had a valid leasehold interest in the premises as of the date of the bankruptcy filing. First, the subject lease was executed by Movant as landlord and Aleksandar Mackovski ("A.M.") as tenant. Debtor is not mentioned in the lease and did not sign the lease. Second, Section 9.1 of the lease specifically provides that the tenant does not have the right to assign or sublet the premises or to "permit the use or occupancy of the Premises by anyone other than Tenant . . . without the prior written consent of [Movant] . . . ." Motion, Exh. 1 at 22-23. Third, there is no evidence that the lease was formally assigned to Debtor and, indeed, rent payments were always remitted by A.M. to Movant. Declaration of Norma Lara at para 11.
Given the lack of evidence of valid assignment of the lease from A.M. to Debtor, it would appear that the leasehold was never part of the bankruptcy estate and, as a consequence, Section 365 would not be implicated in any way. See, e.g., In re Elm Inn, Inc., 942 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1991):
10:30 AM
"The problem with the Andersons' [landlord's] argument is its factual
premise, not its legal reasoning. By its own terms, section 365(d)(4) only applies to leases 'under which the debtor is the lessee,' and both the bankruptcy court and the BAP have explained that the precise nature of the debtor's interest in the Anderson lease remains unclear: '[t]here is conflicting evidence regarding whether the debtor or Paratore held the leasehold interest.' In re Elm Inn, Inc., 105 B.R. at 547. If Paratore never assigned the lease to the debtor, then the leasehold is not part of the bankrupt estate at all, and section 365(d)(4) is wholly inapplicable. No legal argument in the world can help the Andersons in this action if the leasehold in question was never an asset subject to the bankruptcy. Similarly, if the debtor's interest in the lease is only partial, no surrender order can issue without a prior factual determination of the extent of that partial interest." (emphasis added).
Here, as indicated above, there is no evidence showing that Debtor even held a partial leasehold interest in the premises. At best, she may have had a possessory interest. However, such mere possessory interest does not elevate Debtor's interest to a leasehold interest. Note that Section 365(d)(4) refers only to leases in which "the debtor is the lessee." Under the circumstances presented here, the court cannot find that Debtor is the lessee of the subject lease. For this reason, the court does not believe the estate assets in this case include the subject leasehold.
To the extent that Debtor held a mere possessory interest in the premises, the Motion should be deemed a request for relief from the bankruptcy stay to proceed with eviction proceedings under applicable state law.
To the extent that Debtor could be deemed to hold a leasehold interest in the premises, Section 365(d)(4) requires that the trustee surrender the premises, not the debtor. Applying the plain language of the statute, in a chapter 7 case, the landlord would need to pursue its state law remedies for recovery of the property.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, apppearance at the hearing is not required and Movant shall, within 7 days of the hearing, lodge an order consistent with the same. At its option, Movant may attach a copy of this tentative ruling as an exhibit to the order.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Movant(s):
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
[FINANCIAL RELIEF LAW CENTER, COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR IN POSSESSION]
Docket 56
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested on interim basis.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 28
OFF CALENDAR: Debtors' Notice of Withdrawal of Objection to Proof of Claim No. 2-1, filed 1/23/2019 - td (1/23/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William Raymond Harvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Joint Debtor(s):
Akram Naieharvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
FR: 12-6-18
Docket 5
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part: Grant to dismiss as to the 2nd Claim for Relief (Fraud In a Fiduciary Capacity) with leave to amend; Deny as to all other Claims for Relief. Amended Complaint must be filed no later than February 21, 2019 and responsive pleading no later than March 21, 2019. Continue status conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Debtors filed the instant motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (the "Motion") on October 10, 2018 [AP dkt. #5]. The Complaint alleges causes of action under §§ 523(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), and 524(a)(3)(each individually, a "Claim," and collectively, the "Claims"). Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), incorporated herein by FRBP 7012, Debtors seek dismissal of the Complaint because Plaintiff has failed to plead specific facts to sustain the Claims. Debtors also request that leave to amend be denied because Plaintiff cannot plead any other facts that can cure the pleading deficiency in the Complaint.
Applicable Standard re Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6)
2:00 PM
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and probability of entitlement to relief. In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
In Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007), the Supreme Court established more stringent notice-pleading standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A plaintiff is required to provide more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ...." Id. The plaintiff must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly overruled the more liberal Conley v. Gibson standard, which held that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. With the new standard in Twombly, the Supreme Court has said that the facts asserted in support of the claim need to cross the line "from conceivable to plausible."
Analysis
The 1st Claim Under § 523(a)(2)(A) Pleads Fraud With the Requisite Specificity
2:00 PM
The 1st Claim alleged is under § 523(a)(2)(A) for fraud. Where fraud is alleged, "under FRCP 9(b), applicable via Rule 7009, fraud must be pleaded with particularity." In re Jacks, 266 B.R. 728, 734 (BAP 9th Cir. 2001). Allegations of fraud must comply with FRCP (9)(b). "To comply with Rule 9(b), allegations of 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 they have done anything wrong." Bly-Magee v. Cal., 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, "[t]erms such as 'conversion,' ... 'willful,' 'oppressive,' 'fraudulent,' and 'malicious' are generic terms of a conclusory nature. Stating them serially in a complaint does not transmute them into fact." In re Aboukhater, 165 B.R. 904, 909 (BAP 9th Cir. 1994).
For a debt to be non-dischargeable pursuant to § 532(a)(2)(A), the following five elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the debtor made the 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 justifiably relied on such representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made. In re Kirsh, 973 F.2d. 1454, 1457 (9th Cir. 1992). The § 523(a)(2)(A) elements mirror the elements of common law fraud. In re Younie, 211 B.R. 367, 373 (9th Cir. BAP 1997).
W ith regard to elements (1), (2) and (3) – which, when taken together, establish the element of intent to deceive – a creditor must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a debtor knowingly made a false representation, either express or implied, with the intent of deceiving the creditor. In re Brown, 217 B.R. 857, 860-61 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1998). Since direct proof of intent to deceive is nearly impossible to obtain, the element of intent may be inferred from proof of surrounding circumstances "if the facts and circumstances of a particular case present a picture of deceptive conduct by the debtor." Id. at 861. In determining that issue, the court must look to all of the circumstances surrounding the particular transaction and must particularly consider the subjective effect of those circumstances upon the creditor. Kirsh, 973 F.2d. at 1460.
2:00 PM
With regard to element (4), the creditor must be justified in relying on a representation of fact, even though he might have ascertained the falsity of the representation had he made an investigation. Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 70 (1995). "Justification is a matter of the qualities and characteristics of the particular plaintiff, and the circumstances of the particular case, rather than the application of a community standard of conduct to all cases." Id. at 71.
However, "it is only where under the circumstance, the facts should be apparent to one of his knowledge and intelligence from a cursory glance, or he has discovered something which should serve as a warning that he is being deceived, that he is required to make an investigation of his own." Id. The nondisclosure of a material fact in the face of a duty to disclose also establishes the requisite reliance for actual fraud. Apte v. Japra, 96 F.3d 1319, 1323 (9th Cir. 1996). "A party to a business transaction has a duty to disclose when the other party is ignorant of material facts which he does not have an opportunity to discover." Id. at 1324.
W ith regard to element (5), the creditor must establish that defendant’s conduct was "so significant and important a cause that the defendant should be legally responsible." Britton v. Price, 950 F.2d 602, 604 (9th Cir. 1991). In determining the presence of proximate cause, courts must refrain from relying on speculation to determine whether and to what extent a creditor would have suffered a loss absent fraud. In re Russell, 203 B.R. at 312, 313 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1996).
The Motion appears to take issue with only two of the five elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). First, Debtors argue the first element was not met because no false representation was alleged. See, Mot., p. 6:27-7:22. Second, Debtors argue the last element was not met Plaintiff has failed to plead adequate facts regarding damages (an argument that Debtors contend is applicable to all of the Claims).
Debtor George Was Not Required to Make A False Representation
Debtors argue the first element was not met because Plaintiff failed to
2:00 PM
identify any representation made by Debtor George to Plaintiff. However, fraud may be established by the concealment of a material fact. The bankruptcy court in In re Davis 486 B.R. 182, 191 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2013) aptly noted this long- established statement of the law:
Fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A) means actual fraud. The term “actual fraud” was added as a ground for exception from discharge with enactment of the Bankruptcy Code and “[w]hatever doubt there may have been prior to the enactment of the Code that fraud may consist of concealment or intentional nondisclosure as well as affirmative misrepresentations of material facts, is clearly dispelled by the addition of the term ‘actual fraud’ in § 523(a)(2)(A).” In re Evans, 181 B.R. 508, 515 n. 6 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1995). It is, thus, “well recognized that silence, or the concealment of a material fact, can be the basis of a false impression which creates a misrepresentation actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A).” Id. at 514–15. See In re Daquila, 2011 WL 3300197 (9th Cir. BAP Feb. 28, 2011) (“A debtor's failure to disclose material facts constitutes a fraudulent omission under § 523(a)(2)(A) if the debtor was under a duty to disclose and possessed an intent to deceive.”); In re Miller, 310 B.R. 185, 196 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2004) (“The concealment or omission of material facts that a party has a duty to disclose can support the nondischargeability of a debt on the grounds of actual fraud.”).
In this case, the Complaint asserts fraud through Debtor’s George’s alleged knowing and willful appropriation and concealment of the iHost Opportunity. See, Compl., p. 1 and p. 8-10, ¶¶38-51.
Debtor’s George’s reliance on In re Aboukhater, 165 B.R. 904 (BAP 9th Cir. 1994) is unpersuasive because the case is distinguishable. Unlike the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim that entirely based on legal conclusions in that case, here the Complaint alleges the specific facts of Defendant's willful concealment of material facts concerning a business opportunity belonging to Plaintiff. See Complaint, ¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22.
These are specific factual allegations are more than mere "conclusory" statements. The court finds they are sufficient to meet both the pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly and the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) of
2:00 PM
the Fed.R.Civ.P. (FRCP). In addition, Debtors’ argument that incorporation of the complaint filed in the State Court Action does not cure the pleading deficiencies is unpersuasive because the incorporation of the State Court Action complaint can be construed as merely adding support to the factual allegations contained in the body of the Complaint. Thus, the factual allegations here, unlike Aboukhater, provide sufficient detail to put Debtors on notice of the allegations against them. As such, the first prong of § 523(a)(2)(A) is satisfied.
Plaintiff Sustained Damages
Debtors’ second argument is that Plaintiff has failed to plead adequate facts regarding damages (an argument that Debtors contend is applicable to all of the Claims). More specifically, Debtors appear to be arguing that Plaintiff’s damages are speculative because Plaintiff’s successful acquisition, and integration, of iHost was not a foregone conclusion. See, Mot., p. 5:18-27. This argument is unpersuasive because the Complaint has alleged the following facts that make Plaintiff’s damages at least plausible: (1) Cheval was Plaintiff’s long- standing business broker in the web hosting industry, Compl., p. 3, ¶14; (2) Cheval contacted Debtor George in his capacity as CEO of Plaintiff with the iHost Opportunity, id. at p. 3-4, ¶¶15 and 17; (3) iHost was established over 15 years ago, lending greater credence to iHost’s annual revenue of approximately
$1,000,000- revenue that Plaintiff did not acquire due to Debtor George’s actions; and (4) Plaintiff had recently closed at least 3 acquisition with Cheval during this time, id. at 4, ¶18. These factual combine to create the plausible inference that Cheval presented the iHost Opportunity to Debtor George, on behalf of Plaintiff, believing that Plaintiff likely would be able to acquire and integrate iHost as Plaintiff had done with the other 3 recent acquisitions. Whether Plaintiff actually suffered damages as the result of Defendant's alleged fraudulent conduct will ultimately be determined at trial. They need not be determined at the pleading stage. See, In re Torres-Montoya 584 B.R. 56, 62 (Bankr.D.NM 2018) (Nondischargeability complaint alleging damages in an amount to be determined at trial held sufficient to defeat 12(b)(6) motion).
In sum, the Motion should be denied as to the 1st Claim because the allegations in the Complaint describe Debtor George’s actions which are plausibly fraudulent under § 523(a)(2)(A) and meet the specificity requirements
2:00 PM
of FRCP 9(b).
The 2nd Claim Under § 523(a)(4) Should Be Dismissed Because Debtor George Is Not Fiduciary of Plaintiff For § 523(a)
Purposes
Per § 523(a)(4), debts for "fraud and defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity," embezzlement, or larceny are nondischargeable. The Complaint alleges that Debtor George committed fraud (described above) while acting in his fiduciary capacity as CEO and director of Plaintiff. Compl., p. 10-11, ¶¶52-60. In its Opposition, Plaintiff adds an additional claim under § 523(a)(4)- embezzlement. Opp’n, p. 14:24-15:14. Since embezzlement was not alleged in the Complaint, see, Compl., pp. 1 and. 10-11, ¶¶52-60, the additional embezzlement claim is ignored in this analysis.
"The question as to whether the debtor is or was a 'fiduciary' for purposes of a claim under § 523(a)(4) is governed by federal law." In re Mele, 501 B.R. 357, 363 (BAP. 9th Cir. 2013). The Ninth Circuit has "adopted a narrow definition of 'fiduciary' for purposes of§ 523(a)(4)" which does not include corporate officers. In re Cantrell, 329 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that individual "in his role as a corporate officer [is] not a fiduciary within the meaning of§ 523(a)(4)," and thus even "corporate officer who is personally liable for corporate fraud may discharge such debt in bankruptcy").
"To except a debt from discharge under§ 523(a)(4), a creditor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, 1) an express trust existed, 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." Otto v. Niles (In re Niles), 106 F.3d 1456, 1459 (9th Cir. 1997).
The Complaint Fails To Allege Facts That An Express Trust Existed, i.e., There Was Not Fiduciary Relationship Between Plaintiff and Debtor George
Under California law, officers and directors "are imbued with the fiduciary
2:00 PM
duties of an agent and certain duties of a trustee, [but] they are not trustees with respect to corporate assets." Cantrell, 329 F.3d at 1126-27 (relying on Bainbridge v. Stoner, 106 P.2d 423 (Cal.1940), which explicitly held that director of corporation act as fiduciaries but this relationship is one of agency, not trust).
In response to the Cantrell holding by the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff argues that Debtor George was fiduciary of Plaintiff because Debtor George was entrusted with Plaintiff’s corporate assets and had unfettered control over the corporate assets. Compl., p. 10, ¶¶53-54; Opp’n, p. 13:5-26. Plaintiff also argues that the Shareholder Agreement and Section 300 of Plaintiff’s bylaws were an express trust thereby creating the requisite fiduciary relationship.
Compl., p. 5, ¶¶24-26; Opp’n, p. 12:16-13:4 and Ex. A.
Plaintiff’s first argument regarding Debtor’s control over the corporate assets is unpersuasive because control alone over assets does not create a trust relationship. See, In In re Saccheri, 2012 WL 5359512 *1, 11 (BAP 9th Cir.
Nov. 1, 2012)(rejecting the argument that unlimited control over company bank accounts made debtor a fiduciary under § 523(a)(4)). Under California law: 1) present intent to create a trust, 2) trustee, 3) trust property, 4) a proper legal purpose, and 5) a beneficiary. In re Honkanen 446 B.R. 373, 379 (BAP 9th Cir. 2011). This argument is also unpersuasive because control alone does not satisfy the 5 elements of an express trust.
Plaintiff’s second argument that the Shareholder Agreement and Section 300 of Plaintiff’s bylaws are a express trust also fail to satisfy the 5 elements of an express trust. First, the excerpted section of the Shareholder Agreement included in the Complaint does not mention of a trust relationship nor identity any beneficiary in the section. See, Compl., p. 5, ¶¶24-26. Second, as this is a 12(b)(6) Motion, the court does not consider any documents outside the four corners of the Complaint. Thus, the excerpt of the By-laws attached to the Declaration of Chad Riddle have not been considered by the Court. See Opp’n, Ex. A.
Finally, Plaintiff’s reliance on In re Abrams, 229 B.R. 784, 792 (BAP 9th Cir. 1999) is unpersuasive because Abrams is distinguishable from the instant case. The Abrams debtor was found to be a fiduciary for § 523(a)(4) purposes
2:00 PM
under partnership law and here, Plantiff is a corporation. Plaintiff’s reliance on In re Huong, 636 Fed. Appx 396, 398 (9th Cir. 2016) is similarly unpersuasive because although California’s "trust fund doctrine" could create a fiduciary relationship for § 523(a)(4) purposes, the Complaint fails to allege any facts that Plaintiff was insolvent before Debtor George’s alleged fraud. Id. ("California courts adhere to the "trust fund doctrine," pursuant to which "all of the assets of a corporation, immediately upon becoming insolvent, become a trust fund for the benefit of all [of the corporation's] creditors [ ].")
In sum, the Complaint fails to state a claim for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity as fidiciary is defined under federal law. The court cannot find, however, that stating such a claim in an amended complaint would be an impossibility. Accordingly, the claim will be dismissed with leave to amend.
The 3rd Claim Under § 523(a)(6) Sufficiently Pleads Malice and Willful Injury
Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge debts arising from a debtor’s "willful and malicious" injury to another person or to the property of another.
Barboza v. New Form, Inc. (In re Barboza), 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008). The "willful" and "malicious" requirements are conjunctive and subject to separate analysis. Id.
Debtors argue that the 3rd Claim should be dismissed because the Complaint fails to include any specific allegation that Debtors "intended to or were substantially certain that injury to Plaintiff would result from either of their conduct." Mot., p. 10:6-8. Debtors further argue that Debtors could not have the subjective intent to injure Plaintiff when Plaintiff has not suffered any injury due to the speculative nature of its damages. Mot., p. 10:8-16. As discussed above in the section above regarding the 1st Claim, however, the Complaint alleges facts sufficient to make it plausible that Plaintiff’s damages are not speculative. Thus, Debtors’ second argument here is unpersuasive. Turning to the first argument:
Maliciously Injury Is Plausible Under The Facts In The Complaint
A "malicious" injury requires: "(1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3)
2:00 PM
which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse."
Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich), 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2001).
Here, the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to find it plausible that Debtor George maliciously injured Plaintiff: (i) Debtor George wrongfully acted by concealing and acquiring the iHost Opportunity, for his own benefit, while Debtor George was CEO of Plaintiff, (ii) the wrongful act was intentionally done because Debtor George, as CEO, was sophisticated and intentionally acted to conceal and acquire iHost which occurred over a period of time before the iHost acquisition closed, (iii) the wrongful act necessarily caused injury to Plaintiff because acquiring iHost via Fast Data injured Plaintiff by creating a competitor and causing Plaintiff to lose approximately $1,000,000 of additional, annual revenue; and (iv) the wrongful act was done without just cause or excuse because Debtor George was CEO of Plaintiff, with fiduciary duties as an officer of Plaintiff, and Debtor George was aware that Plaintiff’s continued strategy to grow the business by acquiring other web hosting companies. See, Compl., p. 2,
¶10, p. 3, ¶14-16, p. 4, ¶18-22.
Willful Injury Is Plausible Under The Facts in the Complaint
The willful injury requirement speaks to the state of mind necessary for nondischargeability. An exacting requirement, it is satisfied when a debtor harbors either a subjective intent to harm, or a subjective belief that harm is substantially certain. In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002); see also In re Jercich, 238 F.3d at 1208. The injury must be deliberate or intentional, "not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury." Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998). Thus, "debts arising from recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the compass of § 523(a)(6)." Id. at 64.
In this case, the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to find that Debtor George willfully injured Plaintiff. The Complaint alleges: (i) Debtor George was a sophisticated actor since he served as Plaintiff’s CEO, COO, and CRO at all times relevant, Compl., p. 2, ¶10; (ii) Debtor George was aware that Plaintiff had recently acquired 3 web hosting companies similar to iHost, id. at p.4, ¶18; (iii) Debtor Georg knew that acquiring iHost via Fast Data would injure Plaintiff by
2:00 PM
competing against Plaintiff, a reasonable inference given the last 3 acquisitions, id. at p. 4, ¶22; (iv) Debtor George knew that Plaintiff would be losing out on approximately $1,000,000 of additional, annual revenue based on emails received from Cheval regarding iHost, id. at p. 3, ¶¶15-16; (v) Debtor George’s actions to acquire iHost to the injury of Plaintiff were intentional because Debtor intentionally engaged in negotiations to purchase iHost without informing Plaintiff, id. at p. 4, ¶¶19-21. The combined effect of these factual allegations is that Debtor George’s actions can be plausibly construed as intentional and not merely reckless or negligent.
The court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a claim for relief under § 523 (a)(6).
The 4th Claim Under § 524(a)(3) Need Not Be Dismissed Debtors argue that the 4th Claim should be dismissed because § 524 does
not set forth a private right of action. Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 233 F.3d 417, 422-23 (6th Cir. 2000)(joining majority of courts finding § 524 does not create private right of action). Per § 524(a)(3), in relevant party, any community property acquired after the petition remains liable for any community debt excepted from discharge under § 523. However, the Ninth Circuit Appellate Panel has held that including the non-culpable, or even non-filing spouse, in a dischargeability complaint is appropriate. See, In re Kimmel, 378 B.R. 630, 637 (9th Cir. BAP 2007):
" If a debt on a community claim would be excepted from discharge in a bankruptcy of the nondebtor spouse, then § 523(a)(3) [sic 524(a)(3)] provides that a nondischargeability action directed at the nondebtor spouse can be initiated in order to establish an exception to the allowable community claims that are discharged. The operative statutory language provides that the protection of after-acquired community property from liability for a prepetition community claim does not apply when the claim “is excepted from discharge ... [or] would be so excepted, determined in accordance with the provisions of sections 523(c) and 523(d) of this title, in a [hypothetical] case concerning the debtor's spouse commenced on the date of the filing of the petition. ” 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(3)."
order to establish an exception
2:00 PM
property from liability for a provisions of sections 523(c) and
Leave to Amend
Leave to amend a complaint or claim is generally within the discretion of the bankruptcy court and is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Mende v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 670 F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1982). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (made applicable to this proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015) provides that a party may amend the party’s pleading by leave of court and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit applies this rule with "extreme liberality." Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997). In exercising its discretion, a bankruptcy court "must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." In re Magno, 216 B.R. 34 (9th Cir. BAP 1997). A bankruptcy court considers the following factors in determining whether a motion to amend should be granted: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party. Hurn v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Etc., 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981). While recognizing the principles that leave to amend should be freely granted and the preference for decisions on the merits, if the court finds that a complaint has failed to state a claim, dismissal may be without leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may also dismiss a complaint without leave to amend when amendment would be futile. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004).
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
2:00 PM
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
Kevin Meek
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
U.S.C. §523(a)(4); 3. Willful and Malicious Injury by the Debtor to Plaintiff (11
U.S.C. §523(a)(6)); and (4) Denial of Limited Discharge (11 U.S.C. §524(a)(3) FR: 12-6-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Pro Se
Cheri Lynn Natzic Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
Kevin Meek
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
9:00 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01042 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
(Per hearing on P.I. held 9-6-18) FR: 1-24-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: 1/24/2019 and 1/25/2019 Trial Dates Vacated and Shall Be Re-Scheduled at the 3/21/2019 Pre-trial Conference, Per Order Entered 12/11/2018 - td (12/11/2018)
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
9:00 AM
Mark Ziebold Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se Nationwide Life Insurance Company Pro Se Nationwide Life and Annuity Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01154 Dailey, Jr. v. Transcend Investment Group, Inc.
FR: 10-18-18; 10-25-18; FR. 12-20-18; 1-17-19
Docket 4
OFF CALENDAR: Request for Dismissal of Adversary Complaint filed 1/16/2019; No Answer Filed - td (1/16/2019)
October 18, 2018
Continue status conference to October 25, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on motion for default judgment. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
October 25, 2018
Continue status conference to December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by December 6, 2018; Plaintiff needs to re-serve the amended complaint in accordance with FRBP 7004(b)(3). (XX)
The court intends to vacate the default entered by the Clerk in light of the defective service.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Thomas Charles Dailey Jr Represented By Halli B Heston Ronald Appel Richard G Heston
Defendant(s):
Transcend Investment Group, Inc. Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas Charles Dailey Jr. Represented By Ronald Appel
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
(Another Summons Issued 9/13/18) FR: 12-6-18
Docket 3
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Continued to March 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Pro Se
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 1/10/2019 (XX) - td (1/10/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01118 Smith, III v. Swindell et al
Docket 3
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 as to Defendants Casey Swindell and Kimberly Amaral Only filed 8/29/18 - td (8/30/2018)
November 8, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a formal motion to serve complaint by publication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.7004(c). Informal request in a declaration (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 6, 2018
No updated status report filed -- plaintiff's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of the adversary and why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file a status report.
January 31, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by February 25, 2019.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Defendant(s):
Patrick Swindell Pro Se
David P Hutchens Pro Se
Casey Swindell Pro Se
Kimberly Amaral Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01187 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
U.S.C. §§548(a)(1)(B) and 550; To preserve avoided transfers pursuant to 11
U.S.C. §552; and (8) For injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §105 (Another Summons Issued 11/7/18)
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against attorney for Plaintiff for failing to timely file a status report. In addition, no proof of service has been filed showing proper service to defendants. Continue hearing to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. Court to issue OSC re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute which will be heard on the same date/time as the continued hearing.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01034 BB West Hollywood, Inc. et al v. Lin
FR: 5-17-18; 6-26-18; 11-8-18; 1-17-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§523(a)(4) with Covenant not to Execute; Dismissal of Remaining Causes of Action; Order Vacating Pre-trial Conference Entered 1/30/2019 - td (1/30/2019)
June 26, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 5, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Aug. 21, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 8, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Oct. 25, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
November 8, 2018
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to January 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in light of pending settlement; updated status report must be filed by January 10, 2019 unless a settlement has been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Kristina Thi Lin Represented By Jeffrey B Smith
Defendant(s):
Kristina Thi Lin Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
BB West Hollywood, Inc. Represented By Robert K Wing
Thanh Tran Represented By
Robert K Wing
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw Richard A Marshack
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01100 Hao v. Naderi
FR: 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 5-31-18; 9-6-18; 10-25-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
August 31, 2017
Continue Status Conference to Oct. 19, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by Oct. 5, 2017 unless a motion for default judgment has been filed by such date. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
October 19, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: April 5, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: April 30, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: May 31, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: May 17, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
May 31, 2018
Court's Comments:
No party filed a timely joint or unilateral pretrial stipulation. See LBR 7016-1(c) and 7016-1(e)(2).
Plaintiff filed an untimely unilateral pretrial statement which appears to be incomplete. The default judgment does not include any indication that the judgment was based on the fraud in the second amended complaint. For example, no punitive damages were awarded. Because the second amended complaint includes dischargeable causes of action such as negligence and breach of contract, the judgment could have been rendered on such claims without consideration of the fraud causes of action. Accordingly, claim and/or issue preclusion would appear to not be applicable. One of the elements for collateral estoppel or res judicata is that a particular issue or claim must have necessarily been decided. As previously noted, the default judgment gives no indication that the fraud claim was decided. For that reason, the pretrial stipulation must set forth all facts, disputed and undisputed, that establish the elements of fraud.
9:30 AM
Defendant filed an improper "objection" to Plaintiff's unilateral pretrial statement and did not file a unilateral pretrial statement that complies with LBR 7016-1(e)(2).
Defendant complains that Plaintiff has not complied with FRCP 26 but fails to address whether he has complied with the same. Rule 26 requires that "a party, without awaiting a discovery request" provide certain information "that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses" (emphasis
added). Compliance with Rule 26 is not limited to plaintiffs. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff has complied with Rule 26 by making disclosures to Defendant's prior attorney on October 31, 2017. See Reply of Plaintiff filed May 25, 2018 [Docket #35].
Any disputes re FRBP 7026 must be addressed strictly in accordance with LBR 7026-1(c).
Attorney of record, in the court's view, includes all attorneys working for a law firm -- in this case the Law Offices of Edward C. Ip & Associates. Both Ms.Bhupinder Malik and Ms. Jenny Zhao appear on the firm's website. Even if Ms. Zhao no longer works at the firm, she was apparently associated with the firm at some point during the pendency of this adversary proceeding as evidenced by the fact that Defendant's current counsel, Mr. Cohen, served Ms. Zhao (via NEF) with his substitution of attorney. See Docket #26, proof of service: "jenny@lawyer4property.com"
The parties are encouraged to ratchet down the querulous rhetoric and start working together in a civil manner. This court expects no less.
6. Due to Defendant's own failure to comply with Rule 26 and LBR 7016-1(e)(2), and possibly LBR 7026-1(c)(1)-(3), the court will not dismiss this adversary proceeding at this time.
Special note: The court is aware that Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on 5/22/18; however such motion does not relieve Defendant from complying with LBR 7016-1(e)(2).
9:30 AM
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
September 6, 2018
Continue pretrial conference to October 18, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; revised joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by September 27, 2018.
The pretrial stipulation requires substantial revision. See comments below. Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation filed Aug. 22, 2018 (docket #42):
Re paragraph B(15)(a)(i):
This issue of fact shall be included -- overruler Defendant's objection.
Re paragraph B(15)(b):
Re paragraph i. Basis for the assertion that this court limited Plaintiff's trial exhibits to the five documents referenced therein. Is there an entered order to that effect?
Re paragraphs vi, viii, x, xii, xiii, xiv, xv: Why is/are the conduct and/or actions of Lynn Yang relevant to this action? Defendant's actions/conduct are the focus of 523(a)(2)(A).
Re paragraphs xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii and xxiv: Unless Plaintiff can establish that the state court judgment necessarily decided fraud causes of action (as opposed to non-fraud causes of action), neither res judicata or estoppel applies and, as a consequence, the issues identified in these paragraphs are irrelevant to this adversary and need not be decided at trial. . Does Plaintiff intend to assert res judicata or collateral estoppel?
Re Paragraphs C(1) - (5) and (a)(i), (ii) and (iii)
9:30 AM
If Plaintiff is not asserting collateral estoppel, these paragraphs should be deleted as irrelevant.
Re Paragraphs C(a)(iv), (v), (vi),(vii):
These issues relate to the sufficiency of evidence to be determined at trial and are not "issues of law." For example, paragraph vii even includes argument (last sentence). Delete.
Re Paragraphs C(a)(viii, ix, and x)e
These issues relate to the admission or exclusion of evidence and are not "issues of law." Moreover, the issues are already addressed in Paragraph F re motions in limine.
Re Paragraph F(2):
This paragraph states that defendant shall file motions in limine, motion for summary judgment and/or nonsuit, motion for directed verdict, once Plaintiff rests. The court assumes that "once Plaintiff rests" refers only to nonsuit and not to motions in limine or summary judgment, both of which must be filed and heard before trial.
Re Time Estimate of 2-3 days: Does Plaintiff assume direct testimony will be declaration or live? This court's normal trial practice to require the parties to submit direct testimony by declaration prior to trial (exclusive of adverse or rebuttal testimony).
Re Witness List
Is this a joint plaintiff/defendant witness list?
Re witness Bin Hao, reference is made to the "fraud" judgment she obtained in LA Superior Court. What fraud judgment? There is no finding of fraud in the judgment attached to the Complaint as exhibit 2. Absent an actual fraud judgment, the description of testimony must be specified.
9:30 AM
Re defendant Naderi: The testimony description is inadequate if limited to "knowledge about the civil case" in Superior Court. What about his knowledge about the transaction in dispute?
Re witness Henry Hirsch: Testimony description is inadequate. Simply states he was a defendant and does not describe the nature of his testimony in this matter.
Re witness Lynn Yang: same comments as for Henry Hirsch.
Re witness C. Ip: Testimony description is inadequate. What will he testify about?
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
October 25, 2018
Plaintiff to appear and explain why a joint stipulation was not filed and also why the witness testimony summaries in the list of witnesses were not corrected to address the issues raised by the court in its Sept. 6, 2018 tentative ruling. See above.
Defendant to explain why there was no participation in the preparation of the pretrial stipulation.
January 31, 2019
Comment re Plaintiff's Exhibit List: 1) Declarations are not "exhibits" -- they are written testimony and are hearsay if being admitted for the truth of the facts referenced therein; 2) The Second Amended Complaint is not evidence of anything, including fraud -- it's just a set of allegations; and 3) The court could not locate a declaration re the submission of a unilateral stipulation
9:30 AM
If Defendant refused to participate in the preparation of the pretrial stipulation, he will not be allowed to present any witnesses (other than himself) and no exhibits.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Farhad Naderi Represented By Halli B Heston
Defendant(s):
Farhad Naderi Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Bin Hao Represented By
Chi L Ip
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01049 Rehburg v. Helton-Rehburg
FR: 6-21-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 5/2/19 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 10/22/18 (XX) - td (10/22/2018)
June 21, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Nov. 1, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 11, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Jan. 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
(XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Jan. 17, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Represented By Christopher P Walker
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa M. Rehburg Represented By Bradley D Blakeley
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01071 Albert-Sheridan v. Education Credit Management Corporation et al
FR: 7-10-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Pre-trial Conference Vacated; Status Conference Set for 3/21/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 12/17/2018 - td (12/17/2)018
July 10, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: 10/15/18 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation:11/16/18
Pretrial Conference Date: 12/20/18 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: 11/13/18
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
The Education Resources Institute Pro Se
Education Credit Management Represented By Scott A Schiff
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01095 Albert-Sheridan v. Coast Huntington Business Centers et al
Retaliatory Eviction 3. Violation of Automatic Stay FR: 11-15-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to January 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a timely and fully completed joint status report that addresses all relevant issues, including without limitation, status of service of summons and complaint on defendants Icon Owner Pool 1 and LA Business Parks LLC*, satisfaction of meet and confer requirements, discovery needs, etc (see joint status report form for additional details and disclosures). A joint status report must be filed no later than January 17, 2019. (XX)
As Plaintiff asserts actions against her or her property in violation of her
9:30 AM
automatic stay, the trustee has no standing. Even if he did, he has abandoned it to Plaintiff. Further, as bankruptcy law (11 U.S.C. 362(a)) is implicated the matter must be adjudicated in this court.
*Defendant Coast Huntington Business Centers has filed a motion to dismiss which is set for hearing on today's 10:30 a.m. calendar and is unopposed. The tentative ruling is to grant the motion to dismiss as to such defendant. [See Calendar #45]
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
January 31, 2019
In light of the unilateral status report filed by defendant Icon, this status conference shall be continued to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. and an updated joint status report must be filed by February 26, 2019. The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not be Dismissed Due to Failure to Prosecute ("OSC"), which OSC shall also be set for hearing on March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Coast Huntington Business Centers Pro Se
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01114 Albert-Sheridan v. Tessler et al
FR: 9-13-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 13, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018 (XX)
Special Note: The chapter 7 trustee has requested a 60-day continuance based upon his intent to abandon this claim. However, the court notes that 1) this adversary appears to be seeking a determination of dischargeability, and 2) though the trustee's unilateral report indicates that all defendants were served with the summons and complaint, there is no filed proof of service indicating that defendants were served.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to January 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a timely and fully completed joint status report that addresses all relevant issues, including without limitation, status of service of summons and complaint on all defendants, satisfaction of meet and confer requirements, discovery needs,
9:30 AM
etc (see joint status report form for additional details and disclosures). No proof of service has been filed showing proper service of the summons and complaint to Defendants. Plaintiff must file a joint status report no later than January 17, 2019 and such status report must state the purpose for this adversary. See comments below. (XX)
As Plaintiff seeks a determination of dischargeability of a debt, the trustee has no standing as to dischargeability of a particular debt and, therefore, his abandonment motion does not affect this adversary.. That said, the purpose of this adversary proceeding is puzzling for the following reasons:
The First Claim for Relief is described as "Declaration That the Loan is Not a Student Loan". However, the debt in question does not involve a student loan.
Plaintiff does not allege the specific statutory exception that could apply to exclude the attorney fee award as a dischargeable debt. Notably, the deadline for creditors to file objections to discharge/determination of dischargeability expired on October 9, 2018. See Docket #197. The court is not aware that any creditor timely filed an adversary proceeding against Debtor for a determination of dischargeability.
The Second Claim for Relief is described as "Declaration that any Obligation to Key Bank or TERI Should be Discharged Due to Unclean Hands." Neither Key Bank or TERI are named defendants in this adversary proceeding.
Debtor seeks alternative relief re undue hardship. However, undue hardship only applies under 523(a)(8) [student loan debt]. The subject debt in this adversary is not a student loan.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
January 31, 2019
By its order entered January 10, 2019 [docket #12], Plaintiff was ordered to file a
9:30 AM
joint status report addressing certain issues raised by the court in its December 20, 2018 tentative ruling. As of January 25, 2018, no status report was filed by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the status conference will be continued to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. and the court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not be Dismissed Due to Failure to Prosecute ("OSC"), which OSC shall also be set for hearing on March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Irwin Tessler Pro Se
Michael Tessler Pro Se
ViewCrest Road Properties, LLC Pro Se
Art Carvalho Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01182 Marshack v. Mouldtec, Inc.
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant motion.
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Anthony C. Duffy Represented By
Catherine Christiansen
Defendant(s):
Mouldtec, Inc. Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Michael G Spector
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01182 Marshack v. Mouldtec, Inc.
2. Account Stated FR: 12-20-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 20, 2018
Continue Status Conference to January 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
January 31, 2019
Off calendar in light of granting of motion for default judgment.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Anthony C. Duffy Represented By
Catherine Christiansen
Defendant(s):
Mouldtec, Inc. Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Michael G Spector
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01195 La Paz Mortgage, Inc. v. Porter
FR: 1-17-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
La Paz Mortgage, Inc. Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo Alan J Kessel
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Jeffrey G Jacobs
10:00 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-11-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19
Docket 72
NONE LISTED -
July 11, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Nastaran Maboudi to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the
10:00 AM
examination will take place outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
10:00 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-27-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-31-19
Docket 74
NONE LISTED -
July 27, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the
10:00 AM
clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19
Docket 130
NONE LISTED -
June 21, 2018
No response to OSC filed. If examinees do not appear for examination on this date, they will be found to be in contempt.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Ms. Maboud's request to vacate the court's ruling requiring payment of $1,000 for failure to appear at a prior examination is denied as none of the reasons she cites constitute grounds for not compensating Plaintiff's counsel for appearing for her examination or for excusing Ms. Maboud from appearing at the examination. The amount must be paid within 30 days.
10:00 AM
Special note: Plaintiff has not lodged an order re the September 13, 2018 ruling and needs to do so promptly.
The motion was not properly noticed and, therefore, does not appear on the court's formal calendar;
The motion is not supported by a sworn statement under penalty of perjury as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1.
Even if the unsworn statement is accepted, it does not state grounds sufficient to warrant setting aside the court's September 13, 2018 ruling re the imposition of sanctions. This amount must be paid.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 94
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) waiver if Debtors are not post-confirmation current with payments.
Debtors' opposition re to the Motion based on standing and other non-monetary grounds is overruled for the following reasons:
None of Debtors' standing arguments or authority are persuasive -- the court is surprised that Counsel is raising stale standing/"free house" issues that are not supported by applicable California law.
More importantly, Debtors voluntarily entered into a postpetition loan modification agreement with Movant's servicer Ocwen and even sought and obtained an order from this court approving the same. See motion requesting approval of the loan modification [docket #33] and order approving the same [docket #49]. According to the "permanent" loan modification more than
$254,000 in prepetition arrears were deemed cured and added to principal. DO DEBTORS NOW WISH TO UNDUE THE LOAN MODIFICATION
10:00 AM
AGREEMENT?!
Debtors mentioned nothing about standing issues re either the loan modification agreement or re their claim objection to Claim #12 -- the objection to the claim was based solely on the fact that prepetition arrearages has been removed via the loan modification agreement. [docket #36]. This court sustained that portion of the claim objection. See Order at docket #54. Debtors' arguments in their opposition to the instant Motion would effectively render moot this court's prior rulings regarding the loan modification and claims objection. IS THIS WHAT DEBTORS' REALLY WANT?
In light of the court's comments 2 and 3 above, Debtors are judicially estopped from raising any standing issues.
Note: Unless the parties are able to reach a stipulation, appearances at this hearing are required. If the parties need more time to work out an agreement, they may request a continuance to March 12, 2019 or March 19, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. during the the Clerk's calendar roll call.
Debtor(s):
Julio Cesar Torres Represented By Anthony B Vigil
Joint Debtor(s):
Norma Giselle Torres Represented By Anthony B Vigil
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Sean C Ferry Theron S Covey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver, co-debtor relief, and all other extraordinary relief requested in the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Severo Tlantenchi Blanco Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz
Movant(s):
Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By Robert P Zahradka
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Beriah Samuel Fitch Represented By Joseph M Tosti
Movant(s):
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By
Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and 180-day prospective relief (recordation of order required) in Relief Request #9; deny Relief Request #11.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Angie Cachu Represented By
Bruce A Boice
Movant(s):
SIHAM ALBABA Represented By Stephen C Duringer
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[BROWN RUDNICK LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE THOMAS
H. CASEY]
Docket 653
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Approve allowance and award of fees and expenses as requested on an interim basis
Overrule objection to immediate payment of fees/expenses Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The fees/expenses requested appear reasonable.
The amount requested is relatively de minimis , constituting only approximately 6% of cash on hand.
Imposing a 20% holdback, $12,000, would be merely symbolic and is unnecessary.
Applicant has satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay in liquidating ASC.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Lawrence Keith Dodge Represented By Mike D Neue Derrick Talerico Alan J Friedman William N Lobel
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Cathrine M Castaldi Thomas H Casey Bruce A Hughes
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 656
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Approve allowance and award of fees and expenses as requested on an interim basis
Overrule objection to immediate payment of fees/expenses Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The fees/expenses requested appear reasonable.
The amount requested is relatively de minimis , constituting only approximately 1% of cash on hand.
Imposing a 20% holdback, $2,000, would be merely symbolic and is unnecessary.
Applicant has satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay in liquidating ASC.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Lawrence Keith Dodge Represented By Mike D Neue Derrick Talerico Alan J Friedman William N Lobel
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Cathrine M Castaldi Thomas H Casey Bruce A Hughes
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19
Docket 823
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019 [UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POST]
Grant motion on condition that Trustee's attaches a copy of the Stipulated Judment to the proposed order.
The Motion refers to a stipulated judgment but no form of one is attached and the Motion, therefore, is silent as to the total amount to be paid by Debtors.
Overrule objections filed by Pacific Bank.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy
10:30 AM
David Wood Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01200 Marshack v. Lee, Dr.
[11 U.S.C. Section 550(a)(1), 1107(a), C.C.P. Section 309(a), 316(a) and (b), 339(1) and 343]
FR: 12-1-16; 4-13-17; 7-13-17; 9-21-17; 12-14-17; 2-15-18, 4-12-18
(Advanced from 6-14-18); 6-7-18; 8-2-18; 9-20-18; 11-15-18; 1-24-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 1, 2016
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to April 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 30, 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
April 13, 2017
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to July 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 29 , 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve
10:30 AM
notice of the continued hearing date/time.
July 13, 2017
In light of potential settlement, continue Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 7, 2017 if the matter is not resolved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
September 21, 2017
Continue one final time to December 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date pending completion of settlement; update status report must be filed by November 30, 2017 if the matter is still pending as of such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
November 15, 2018
In light of the pending settlement, continue the status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 10, 2019. (XX)
Special note: I am looking forward to the consummation of this settlement -- hopefully sometime before my retirement.
Note: Unless Plaintiff has new information to report regarding the status of the settlement, appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
10:30 AM
Continue Status Conference to January 31, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on 9019 motion; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
January 31, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of granting of 9019 motion.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
Donald Woo Lee, Dr. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy
10:30 AM
David Wood Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01203 Marshack v. UIC Vein Center, Inc. et al
FR: 12-1-16; 4-13-17; 7-13-17; 9-21-17; 12-14-17; 2-15-18, 4-12-18
(Advanced from 6-14-18); 6-7-18; 8-2-18; 9-20-18; 11-15-18; 1-24-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 1, 2016
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to April 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 30, 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
April 13, 2017
In light of pending settlement discussions, continue status conference to July 13, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 29 , 2017 if a settlement has not been approved by such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
July 13, 2017
10:30 AM
In light of potential settlement, continue Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 7, 2017 if the matter is not resolved by such date. (XX)
September 21, 2017
Continue one final time to December 14, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date pending completion of settlement; update status report must be filed by November 30, 2017 if the matter is still pending as of such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
November 15, 2018
In light of the pending settlement, continue the status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 10, 2019. (XX)
Special note: I am looking forward to the consummation of this settlement -- hopefully sometime before my retirement.
Note: Unless Plaintiff has new information to report regarding the status of the settlement, appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
Continue Status Conference to January 31, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on 9019 motion; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
10:30 AM
January 31, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of granting of 9019 motion.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
UIC Vein Center, Inc. Pro Se
Michael Kim Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson
10:30 AM
Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01098 Boyajian v. Ascher & Associates
#25.00 ORAL RULING RE: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues (Holding Date)
FR: 5-17-18; 7-31-18; 10-25-18; 1-17-19
Docket 27
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 4/11/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Notice of Continuance filed 1/23/2019, Document # 67 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
July 31, 2018
Grant partial summary adjudication as to the Third Claim for Relief (disallowance of Amended Claim) only; abstain as to all other claims for relief pursuant to 28 USC 1334(c)(1). All funds currently being held in the estate for the benefit of Layla Boyajian shall be held for 90 days following entry of the order re the Motion, subject to disposition and/or release by a non-bankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction. After expiration of the 90 days, such funds shall be distributed to Layla Boyajian.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Partial Summary Adjudication: Granted on the ground that The estate has no liability for any part of the Amended Claim as Plaintiff did not obligate himself by written agreement or otherwise for any amounts
10:30 AM
that may be owing by Layla Boyajian to Defendant.
Abstention under 28 USC 1334(c)(1)
Pursuant to In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir.1990), permissive abstention under 28 USC 1334(c)(1) is appropriate as to this adversary proceeding based upon the following circumstances:
The alleged lien at issue in this matter concerns a lien against non-estate property, i.e., Layla Boyajian's interest in the sale proceeds;
The remaining claims for relief all involve state law;
This adversary at its core reflects a dispute between two non-debtors -- Defendant and Plaintiff's mother, Layla Boyajian based upon their attorney-client relationship;
Except for the Third Claim for Relief, the adjudication of the remaining claims for relief will have no material impact on the administration of this case where a plan has already been confirmed and largely, if not entirely, consummated.
As Defendant's lien rights, if any, were created under applicable California law, such rights can be efficiently adjudicated in a California state court.
This court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicated the dispute between two nondebtors as such no bankruptcy laws are implicated. Stated otherwise, any claims between the nondebtors neither arose under the Bankruptcy Code or in this chapter 11 case.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By
10:30 AM
Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
Defendant(s):
Ascher & Associates Represented By Ralph Ascher
Plaintiff(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01098 Boyajian v. Ascher & Associates
FR: 11-2-17; 5-31-18; 6-21-18; 7-31-18; 10-25-18; 1-17-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 4/11/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Notice of Continuance filed 1/23/2019, Document #67 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
November 2, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: Mar. 1, 2018 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: Apr. 6, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: May 31, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: May 17, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector
10:30 AM
Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
Defendant(s):
Ascher & Associates Represented By Ralph Ascher
Plaintiff(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Docket 61
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling. The Movant will be allowed a maximum of 10 minutes to highlight arguments in favor of the Motion, Defendant will be allowed 10 minutes to respond and Movant will be allowed 5 minutes of rebuttal argument. The matter will then be taken under submission until February 14, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., at which time the court will issue its oral ruling.
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Represented By Michael G Spector
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
10:30 AM
Docket 193
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant with all relief requested, subject to overbid.
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
Docket 132
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mary Elizabeth Schaffer Represented By Andrew S Bisom
10:30 AM
Docket 135
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Deny motion without prejudice. Basis for tentative ruling:
Debtor is seeking to close the case before the filing of the first post-confirmation status conference and has provided no information regarding specific distribution made under the plan. For example, has she made the lump sum payment to unsecured creditors? Her supporting declaration is overly vague and states only that 1) she has substantially consummated the plan (but doesn't say how), and 2) that she has not sold the real property. This is insufficient.
Debtor(s):
Mary Elizabeth Schaffer Represented By Andrew S Bisom
10:30 AM
Docket 410
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant in part, deny in part: Grant as to the Cross-Complaint (including IIED Claim and the Ford Settlement Proceeds arising from the settlement of the Cross-Complaint) and the Accounts Receivable; Deny as to the remaining claims against third parties and other contingent claims that were abandoned by the Trustee.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
FR: 7-31-18; 10-18-18; 12-6-18; 12-13-18
Docket 190
NONE LISTED -
July 31, 2018
Continue hearing to October 18, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. in light of the pending motion for relief from stay to seek a determination of the appeal fees/costs in state court. (XX)
. Merits
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). Courts generally agree that the bases for claim disallowance are limited to those specified in section 502. In re SNTL Corp., 571 F.3d 826, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2009). For example, section 502(b)(1) provides that a claim is allowable unless it 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 U.S.C.
10:30 AM
§502(b)(1).
Form of the Proof of Claim
The court has no problem with the form on which the claim was presented. It sufficiently asserts a claim.
Debtor's reference to 11 USC 101(b) [sic] has no application to this matter. Section 101(a) defines a creditor as "an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at the time of or before the order for relief [filing of voluntary petition] concerning the debtor. Debtor's reference is actually to Section 101(10A)(B) which defines current monthly income and excludes benefits received on account of payment to victims of international or domestic terrorism."
Sufficiency of the Documentation
There is a state court judgment which substantiates a portion of the claim -- the proof of claim is presumed valid. Debtor has not produced evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption. That said, the amount of the claim representing attorneys fees relating to the appeal have not yet been determined by the state court. There is a pending motion for relief from stay to seek such a determination set for August 2, 2018.
Timeliness
The proof of claim is not untimely. As the case has converted to chapter 7, a deadline for filing proofs of claim has not yet been set.
December 13, 2018
The parties are to advise the court re the status of the pending state court matter re appellate fees/costs. If the matter has not yet been determined this hearing
10:30 AM
will be continued to January 31, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. and Claimant Bank of America must file a status report re the status of the matter by or before January 17, 2019.
January 31, 2019
Overrule objection as moot in light of the filing of an amended proof of claim (6-2) by Bank of America.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required. Claimant to lodge an order overruling the objection within 7 days of the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Movant(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 21
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Approve employment application.
Debtor's objection is overruled. This court has previously noted that granting relief from stay does not remove the asset from the estate. Rather, it permits the secured creditor to proceed with foreclosure proceedings in accordance with state law if it so chooses. Until the foreclosure sale actually occurs, the property remains property of the estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 341(a).
Debtor(s):
Claudia A Broere Represented By Anthony P Cara
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 37
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Deny approval of disclosure statement. Basis for Tentative Ruling
The plan appears to be facially unconfirmable under 11 U.S.C. 1123(b)(5) as it impermissibly modifies contractual terms of BNYM's note. This is reason alone to deny approval of the disclosure statement.
In addition, the disclosure statement does not provide adequate information re the following:
The circumstances precipitating the current (4th) bankruptcy filing. Mere statement of a pending foreclosure sale is insufficient. No information is provided regarding the prior case and why the confirmed plan could not be consummated.
The marketing of the Lemon Heights property and why the outcome in this bankruptcy will be any different from the unsuccessful outcome of the most recent case in which a plan was confirmed, i.e., the sale of such property.
The means for execution of the plan. The last page of the plan (Exh.H) simply states that the Lemon Heights property will be sold but no explanation as
10:30 AM
to why Debtors have not been able to sell the property for the past 5 years.
Neither the plan or the disclosure statement states a deadline for selling the Lemon Heights property.
There is a vague reference to a one-time family contribution of $20,000 with further information is provided regarding such contribution, including the identity of the contributor.
The disclosure statement is difficult to read and to follow. The court cannot find that the formatting of the disclosure statement is clear enough to allow creditors make an informed decision about the plan.
Additional Comments:
-- Lack of good faith is generally a confirmation issue. Should this case get to confirmation, it will be a significant issue in light of 1) the prior failed bankruptcies, and 2) Debtors' historic inability to sell the very property they are attempting to sell in the current case, 3) arrearages of more than $800,000 on such property, indicating either a refusal or inability to make mortgage payments, and 4) the filing of the bankruptcy on the eve of foreclosure.
-- The court is not persuaded by BNYM's argumen or case authority suggesting that a confirmed plan in a prior dismissed case cannot be modified in a subsequent chapter 11 case. Though the prior confirmed plan does constitute a binding contract, it is nevertheless a prepetition contract like any other prepetition contract. Further, this court does not interpret Section 1127 as applying in not only the current case but in any future cases filed by a debtor in perpetuity.
-- Debtors' counsel's employment application discloses a $12,000 prepetition retainer but makes no mention of any postpetition retainer. However, in Debtor's most recent MOR, there is a listing of $2,000 "postpetition retainer" to counsel.
e. Debtors claim they have listed the Lemon Heights property for sale
10:30 AM
(see MOR filed 8/23/18) but to date no real estate broker has been employed. f.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
and (2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 9-6-18; 12-20-18
Docket 0
NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues which are not addressed in the status report:
Cash Collateral: Debtor has rental income but there is no mention of seeking authorization to use cash collateral or a cash collateral stipulation.
State Court Litigation: More information regarding the nature and procedural posture of the state court action is required. What was going on in the litigation that caused this case to be filed? How will this litigation be dealt with in the bankruptcy case?
Plan/Disclosure Statement: This case appears to be relatively straightforward but the timing of filing a plan and disclosure statement is not discussed in the status report.
Tentative Schedule:
Claims Bar Date: Nov. 19, 2018 (notice by Sept. 17, 2018)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: Nov. 29, 2018
Con't Status Conf: Dec. 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report Due: Dec. 6, 2018 (waived if plan/DS timely
10:30 AM
filed)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 20, 2018
Impose sanctions in the amount against Debtor's for 1) failure to file a plan and disclosure statement and failure to timely file a status report in accordance with the court's September 6, 2018 order. No explanation is offered as why the plan and disclosure statement were not filed by November 29, 2018. No attempt was made to seek an extension of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement. Apparently, counsel views the dates set forth in such order as a mere suggestion which can otherwise be ignored.
The court will issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely file a plan and disclosure statement and to comply with orders of the court.
Note: Apppearance at this hearing is required.
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of related matter on today's calendar.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 25
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Sustain objection.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Debtor is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Debtor's counsel will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jose Alberto Osorio Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 112
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19
Docket 32
NONE LISTED -
January 10, 2019 [Tentative ruling has been modified since original post]
Grant motion to extend time only if service to the insurance companies was proper. The court cannot ascertain from the proof of service whether the insurance companies listed on pages 4 and 5 of the Motion were properly served as their names do not appear on the list of served parties.
January 31, 2019
Service issue corrected -- Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Howard Camhi
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 2/12/19 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Notice of Continued Hearing filed 12/20/2018, Document # 35 (XX) - td (12/21/2018)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Represented By
Todd C. Ringstad
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:00 AM
(Set at SC held 9-20-18) FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19
Docket 544
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/27/2019 at 10:00 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Notice of Continued Hearing filed 1/22/2019, Document #676 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
FR: 9-20-18 (Per Order Entered 10/16/18) FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19
Docket 558
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/27/2019 at 10:00 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Notice of Continuance filed 1/23/2019, Document #677 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
FR: 12-20-18
Docket 623
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/13/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 1/8/2019 (XX) - td (1/9/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01205 Pero v. Tak
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/22/2019 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
William C Tak Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Defendant(s):
William C Tak Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Joseph W Pero Represented By Ryan T Koczara
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 29
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing Entered 1/25/2019 - td (1/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Renee M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 13
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Amended Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 1/17/2019) - td (1/17/2019)
Debtor(s):
Stevan Petar Nenadov Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Joint Debtor(s):
Jessica Ellen Nenadov Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By
Cheryl A Skigin
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Abel Yepes Pro Se
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon fka Represented By
Nancy L Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 363(m); and (4) Approving Compromise of Controversy Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019
FR: 10-11-18; 11-8-18; 12-13-18
Docket 52
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 4/18/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 1/22/2019 (XX) - liz (1/22/19)
Debtor(s):
James E. Case Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura M. Case Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. Hrg. Held 8/19/14)
FR: 2-12-15; 8-20-15; 2-11-16; 8-4-16; 9-22-16; 11-3-16; 1-19-17; 2-16-17,
7-27-17, 1-17-18 (advanced from 1-18-18); 2-22-18; 9-6-18
Docket 107
CONTINUED: Post-Confirmation Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m., on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document # 246 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Alicia Elizabeth Blackman Represented By Bert Briones
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01375 Sotelo et al v. Ramirez et al
FR: 9-20-18; 10-18-18; 11-15-18; 1-10-19
Docket 132
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #150 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
Jose Luis Ramirez Sr Represented By Christopher P Walker
Herman F Cea Pro Se
The Ramirez Family Trust Pro Se
Family Steel Corporation Pro Se
10:30 AM
First American Title Insurance Pro Se
Olimpia Family Trust, Dated Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mayanin Sotelo Pro Se
Salon Envious, Inc. Pro Se
Aurelio Vera Pro Se
Faviola Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01375 Sotelo et al v. Ramirez et al
FR: 11-5-15; 12-17-15; 2-11-16; 9-1-16; 10-6-16; 11-10-16; 12-15-16; 1-19-16;
3-30-17; 5-11-17; 9-7-17; 10-5-17; 11-2-17; 11-30-17; 1-11-18; 2-22-18;
4-12-18; 6-21-18; 7-31-18; 10-18-18; 11-15-18; 1-10-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Prosecution Entered 6/22/18; The Cross-Complaint will Remain for Prosecution by Cross-Plaintiffs - td (6/22/2018)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #150 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
Jose Luis Ramirez Sr Represented By Christopher P Walker
10:30 AM
Herman F Cea Pro Se
The Ramirez Family Trust Pro Se
Family Steel Corporation Pro Se
First American Title Insurance Pro Se
Olimpia Family Trust, Dated Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mayanin Sotelo Pro Se
Salon Envious, Inc. Pro Se
Aurelio Vera Pro Se
Faviola Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF NEIL R. ANAPOL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 28
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document # 32 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
David C. Park Represented By Raymond J Seo
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Neil Anapol
10:30 AM
Docket 32
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #40 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Palliser Represented By
Anerio V Altman
10:30 AM
FR: 12-13-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #40 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Palliser Represented By
Anerio V Altman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
Docket 19
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/l2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #50 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
FR: 12-6-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #50 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17; 8-31-17;
4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18
Docket 73
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document # 139 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
9:30 AM
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Turko United LLC Pro Se
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Movant(s):
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
9:30 AM
Norma Ann Dawson
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
10. Involuntary Dissolution of Defendant Fallbrook Diagnostics, Inc.
FR: 3-12-15; 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17;
8-31-17; 4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18
Docket 59
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #139 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By
9:30 AM
Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw
9:30 AM
Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Docket 55
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document # 75 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Pro Se
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-11-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19;
1-31-19
Docket 72
NONE LISTED -
July 11, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Nastaran Maboudi to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
9:30 AM
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
February 12, 2019
Nastaran Maboudi to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
9:30 AM
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-27-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-31-19
Docket 74
NONE LISTED -
July 27, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the
9:30 AM
clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
February 12, 2019
Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19; 1-31-19
Docket 130
NONE LISTED -
June 21, 2018
No response to OSC filed. If examinees do not appear for examination on this date, they will be found to be in contempt.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Ms. Maboud's request to vacate the court's ruling requiring payment of $1,000 for failure to appear at a prior examination is denied as none of the reasons she cites constitute grounds for not compensating Plaintiff's counsel for appearing for her examination or for excusing Ms. Maboud from appearing at the examination. The amount must be paid within 30 days. CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 12, 2019
9:30 AM
AT 9:30 A.M. (XX)
Special note: Plaintiff has not lodged an order re the September 13, 2018 ruling and needs to do so promptly.
The motion was not properly noticed and, therefore, does not appear on the court's formal calendar;
The motion is not supported by a sworn statement under penalty of perjury as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1.
Even if the unsworn statement is accepted, it does not state grounds sufficient to warrant setting aside the court's September 13, 2018 ruling re the imposition of sanctions. This amount must be paid.
February 12, 2019
No tentative ruling
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, as servicer for THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ET AL
VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 7-19-18; 9-6-18; 10-11-18; 12-6-18
Docket 98
NONE LISTED -
July 19, 2018
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Debtor's response is muddled and equivocal -- she doesn't state definitively whether she has made all postpetition payments or, if not, how many are missing. Merely attaching miscellaneous copies of checks (presumably for the court to try to decipher) is insufficient.
September 6, 2018
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
October 11, 2018
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
February 12, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter. If more time is need to reach resolution, the hearing may be continued one final time to April 1, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. requesting the same during the calendar roll call just prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Rosa M Harding Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Movant(s):
THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Gilbert R Yabes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 31
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 2/4/2019 - td (2/4/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paul E Marshall Represented By James R Selth
Movant(s):
VW Credit, Inc. Represented By Darren J Devlin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
February 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Emmanuel Luis Alvarez Barroso Represented By
Christopher J Lauria
Movant(s):
Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 731
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #737 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Norman Wright Branyan Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19
Docket 177
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/1019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #183 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
January 10, 2018
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to provide documentary evidence of the holder of the junior lienholder on the subject property by or before January 22, 2019 (with amended notice if necessary) (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, Debtor has not provided any documentary evidence identifying the holder or authorized agent of the holder of the second deed of trust and, therefore, this court cannot ascertain whether service of this contested matter is proper.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19
Docket 179
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #183 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
January 10, 2018
[This tentative ruling has been modified since its original posting]
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to 1) provide proper service on the current holder of the second deed of trust on the subject property, and 2) file documentary evidence identifying the holder of the second deed of trust by or before January 22, 2019. (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Preliminary statement: The statements and evidence in support of this Motion are all over the place, making a coherent review of the same nearly impossible.
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, there are issues that need to be addressed:
10:30 AM
Debtor represents that the first deed of trust was transferred from Express Capital Lending to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as servicer on April 19, 2019 and directs the court to Exhibit 1, which is the proof of claim filed by BofA, the presumed holder of the first deed of trust. However, documents attached to the proof of claim also seem to show that a) Express Capiral Lending assigned a note/deed of trust (not clear if it's the first or second) to Impac Funding Corp. [Exhibit 1, p.49] and b) Impac Funding Corp assigned its interest in the first deed of trust on April 19, 2012 (postpetition) to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as apparent servicer. [Exhibit 1, p. 50].
There is no documentation or other credible evidence that identifies Impac Funding Corporation, or any other entity, as the holder of the second deed of trust. Accordingly, the court cannot determine whether service of the Motion was proper.
Debtor needs do his research and determine the identity of the holder of the second deed of trust and properly serve that entity. Parenthetically, Debtor also needs to remit plan playments to such entity if it is someone other than Impac.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
F.R.B.P. 9019
Docket 281
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #285 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
Docket 31
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #51 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document # 14 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
FR: 1-31-19
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 4/18/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Order Entered 1/23/2019, Document #36 (XX) - td (1/23/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Represented By
Todd C. Ringstad
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By
2:00 PM
Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01142 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
FR: 11-8-18
Docket 3
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Court's Notice Filed 1/2/19, Document #10 (XX) - td (12/28/2018)
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01160 Schlissel v. Educational Credit Management Corporation
FR: 5-31-18; 12-20-18
Docket 16
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 3/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Court's Notice filed 1/2/2019, document #42 (XX) - td (1/2/2019)
Debtor(s):
Aileen Merrill Schlissel Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Educational Credit Management Represented By
Scott A Schiff
Plaintiff(s):
Aileen Schlissel Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 5-31-18; 7-31-18; 10-18-18
Docket 105
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/19/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Court's Notice Filed 1/2/2019, Document #435 (XX) - td (1/3/2019)
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Movant(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 10-25-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 3/19/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Court's Notice Filed 12/28/2018, Document # 60 (XX) - td (12/28/2018)
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17; 8-31-17;
4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19
Docket 73
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 6/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 2/28/2019 (XX) - td (2/28/2019)
March 12, 2019
Continue status conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date. Court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not be Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction in light of the assignment of this adversary to Debtors pursuant to global settlement between Trustee and Debtors approved by the Court at hearing on January 31, 2019. The OSC hearing will also be held on April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Once the adversary proceeding is dismissed, Debtors will be free to initiate new litigation against the defendant in any nonbankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
9:30 AM
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Movant(s):
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
9:30 AM
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
10. Involuntary Dissolution of Defendant Fallbrook Diagnostics, Inc.
FR: 3-12-15; 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17;
8-31-17; 4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19
Docket 59
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 6/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 2/28/2019 (XX) - td (2/28/2019)
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
9:30 AM
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros
9:30 AM
Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18; 1-31-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 4/18/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 2/26/2019 (XX) - liz (2/26/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01118 Smith, III v. Swindell et al
Docket 3
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 as to Defendants Casey Swindell and Kimberly Amaral Only filed 8/29/18 - td (8/30/2018)
November 8, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a formal motion to serve complaint by publication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.7004(c). Informal request in a declaration (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 6, 2018
No updated status report filed -- plaintiff's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of the adversary and why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file a status report.
January 31, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by February 25, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
March 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. ; updated Status Report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Defendant(s):
Patrick Swindell Pro Se
David P Hutchens Pro Se
Casey Swindell Pro Se
Kimberly Amaral Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Declaratory Relief (Successor Liability); 2. Intentional Fraudulent Transfer; 3. Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; 4. Preservation of Avoided Transfer; 5. Turnover of Assets; 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 7. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; 8. Unjust Enrichment (Another Summons Issued 12/6/10)
FR: 2-12-19
Docket 55
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding
Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 4/4/19 at 2:00 p.m., Per Hearing Held 1/31/19, and Order Entered 2/8/19 (XX) - td (2/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Pro Se
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01205 Pero v. Tak
FR: 2-7-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: August 1, 2019
Deadline to Attend Mediation: September 5, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Sept. 19, 2019 at 9:30a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Sept. 5, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
William C Tak Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Defendant(s):
William C Tak Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Joseph W Pero Represented By Ryan T Koczara
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Trail status conference to the 10:30 a.m. calendar, same time as the hearing on the motion to dismiss the involuntary petition.
March 12, 2019
Trail status conference to the 10:30 a.m. calendar, same time as the hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Debtor(s):
Future Income Payment LLC Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 45
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Thelma C Viajar Represented By Bobby Samini
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, not Represented By
Erin M McCartney
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTORS FR: 1-31-19
Docket 94
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) waiver if Debtors are not post-confirmation current with payments.
Debtors' opposition re to the Motion based on standing and other non-monetary grounds is overruled for the following reasons:
None of Debtors' standing arguments or authority are persuasive -- the court is surprised that Counsel is raising stale standing/"free house" issues that are not supported by applicable California law.
More importantly, Debtors voluntarily entered into a postpetition loan modification agreement with Movant's servicer Ocwen and even sought and obtained an order from this court approving the same. See motion requesting approval of the loan modification [docket #33] and order approving the same [docket #49]. According to the "permanent" loan modification more than
10:00 AM
$254,000 in prepetition arrears were deemed cured and added to principal. DO DEBTORS NOW WISH TO UNDUE THE LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT?!
Debtors mentioned nothing about standing issues re either the loan modification agreement or re their claim objection to Claim #12 -- the objection to the claim was based solely on the fact that prepetition arrearages has been removed via the loan modification agreement. [docket #36]. This court sustained that portion of the claim objection. See Order at docket #54. Debtors' arguments in their opposition to the instant Motion would effectively render moot this court's prior rulings regarding the loan modification and claims objection. IS THIS WHAT DEBTORS' REALLY WANT?
In light of the court's comments 2 and 3 above, Debtors are judicially estopped from raising any standing issues.
Note: Unless the parties are able to reach a stipulation, appearances at this hearing are required. If the parties need more time to work out an agreement, they may request a continuance to March 12, 2019 or March 19, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. during the the Clerk's calendar roll call.
March 12, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter. If more time is needed, the hearing may be continued to April 11, 2019 or April 18 at 10:00 a.m. by requesting a continuance during the Clerk's calendar roll call.
Debtor(s):
Julio Cesar Torres Represented By Anthony B Vigil
Joint Debtor(s):
Norma Giselle Torres Represented By Anthony B Vigil
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Sean C Ferry Theron S Covey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; and LAURA PATRICIA MERCADO, NON-FILING CO-DEBTOR
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and relief from co-debtor stay.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Antonio Vazquez Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Represented By
Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 39
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 3/6/2019 - td (3/6/2019)
March 12, 2019
Grant without 4001(a)(3) waiver unless the parties are able to agree to the terms of an adequate protection order.
Note: Parties are to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Hildegard Katharina Brandt Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Movant(s):
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Represented By
Kelsey X Luu
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 46
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and 362(d)(4) relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Severo Tlantenchi Blanco Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz
Movant(s):
PennyMac Holdings, LLC Represented By Christina J O
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; AND MAYRA A. TLANTENCHI, NON-FILING CO-DEBTOR
Docket 49
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 3/8/2019 - td (3/8/2019)
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver. and all other extraordinary relief requested in the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Severo Tlantenchi Blanco Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz
Movant(s):
Credit Acceptance Corporation Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jennifer H Wang
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chenoa Liana Ramirez Represented By Norma Duenas
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Represented By
Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Motion filed 2/27/19- mp (2/27/19)
March 12, 2019
Motion withdrawn -- off calendar.
Debtor(s):
Hamid Ranjbar Represented By Omid J Shirazi
Movant(s):
First City Credit Union Represented By Karel G Rocha
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
John Bernard St Amand Represented By David L Gibbs
Movant(s):
Alliant Credit Union Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Samuel Stephen McConnell Represented By Steven A Alpert
Joint Debtor(s):
Maria Mercedes McConnell Represented By Steven A Alpert
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By
Sheryl K Ith Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 20
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
[UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING TO REFLECT LATE-FILED OPPOSITION BY DEBTOR]
Debtor was not served with motion in the manner set forth in FRBP 7004(b)(3) as required by FRBP 9014 for contested hearing such as this one. However, as Debtor has filed a limited opposition, the matter will not be continued for service. .
Grant motion with waiver of 4001(a)(3). Movant may litigate to judgment but may not enforce any such judgment against property of the bankruptcy estate.
Movant may also file a claim against the estate. The court is not persuaded by Debtor's argument that Movant filing a claim should be in lieu of obtaining a judgment in state court.
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
One Source Facility Solution, Inc. Represented By
James R Selth
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Lance Arnold Loewenberg Pro Se
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Represented By
Austin P Nagel
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Lawrence Maurice Walker Represented By Peter Rasla
Movant(s):
Fritz J. Firman Represented By Fritz J Firman
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant motion. Deny request for annulment as there is no evidence of any acts taken postpetition.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Andrew Chung Pro Se
Movant(s):
Hooper Nancy Represented By Saman Behnam
Saman Behnam Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Saman Behnam
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 1/28/2019; Notice of Intent to Proceed Despite Dismissal filed 2/12/2019. This Motion to Remain on Calendar - td (2/12/2019)
March 12, 2019
Grant motion with waiver of FRBP 4001(a)(3), co-debtor relief, and prospective in rem relief under 11 U.S.C. 362(d)(4), and all other relief except the relief requested in relief request #11 of the Motion, which is denied.
Note: If the order granting this Motion is duly recorded in compliance with applicable California laws governing notices of interests or liens in the property at issue, then no automatic stay shall apply to such property in any bankruptcy case purporting to affect such property and filed within two years after the date of entry of this order, unless otherwise ordered by the court presiding over that bankruptcy case. For the avoidance of doubt, any acts by the movant to obtain exclusive possession of such property in accordance with applicable California law shall not be stayed, including any eviction actions, through and including any lockout or other enforcement by the Sheriff or other authorized legal authority.
10:00 AM
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Under section 362(d)(4), an order granting relief from stay is binding in any future bankruptcy case affecting the property for two years after the entry of the order granting such relief if the court finds there are multiple bankruptcy filings affecting the subject property pursuant to 362(d)(4)(B).
In addition to this case, there are multiple other bankruptcy cases affecting the subject property located at 6726 East Wardlow Road, Long Beach, CA ("Property"), to wit:
In re Guadalupe Selene Aguila, Case no. 2:19-10216WB filed 1/9/19, dismissed 2/14/19; relief from stay motion filed by Movant re the Property to be held 3/12/19.
In re Luis Alberto Bravo, Case no. 2:19-10005NB filed 1/2/19. Motion for relief from stay filed by Movant re the Property was granted with two-year in rem relief under 362(d)(4) at hearing held on 3/5//19. Debtor Luis Bravo filed a pleading in response to the the motion indicating that he had no knowledge of or interest in the Property. [docket #39].
In re Manuel Junior Cabrera, Case no. 9:19-10002DS filed 1/2/19, dismissed 2/7/19 for failure to appear at creditors' meeting. Motion for relief from stay filed by Movant is pending. Opposition filed by Property borrower, Ron Manning ("Manning").
Exhibit 3 to the Motion purports to be a deed of trust against the Property executed by Manning on January 11, 2019 in favor of Debtor Jesus Lugo, Manuel Junior Cabrera, Luis Bravo and Guadalupe Selene Aguila for the purpose of securing a $20,000 promissory note. The document also includes a recordation date of January 11, 2019. The efficacy of the purported transfer of a security interest in the Property on January 11, 2019 is suspect for the following reasons:
At the time the deed of trust was executed, all four individuals listed on the deed of trust as "lenders" were all in pending bankruptcy cases filed just days
10:00 AM
earlier.
The court finds it highly unlikely that any of the debtors would loan Manning $20,000 while they were in bankruptcy. In fact, according to his chapter 13 plan, Luis Bravo (who filed a sworn statement indicating he had no knowledge of the Property) was more than $36,000 in arrears on his own mortgage at the time he filed his bankruptcy case. Case no. 19-10005 [docket # 22].
Movant has been forced to file motions for relief from stay in four separate bankruptcy cases, including this one. None of the debtors in such cases have opposed the motions -- only Manning, the owner of the Property.
As noted above, the court in In re Bravo has already granted relief from stay under 362(d)(4) which will be in effect for two years.
Section 362(d)(4) provides a remedy for a debtor in a subsequent bankuptcy case within the two year period: such debtor "may move for relief from the order due to changed circumstances or for good cause "
In deciding a motion for relief from stay, the bankruptcy court is only tasked with deciding whether the movant has a colorable claim to enforce its rights against the property, not the substance or merit of the claim. See Veal v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. (In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897, 914-15 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (“a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to enforce a right against property of the estate”); First Fed. Bank. of Cal. v. Robbins (In re Robbins), 310 B.R. 626, 631 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (“Stay relief hearings do not involve a full adjudication on the merits of claims, defenses, or counterclaims, but simply a determination as to whether a creditor has a colorable claim.”). Movant's supporting declaration indicating that it has possession of the note establishes sufficient "colorable claim" to bring this motion. Accordingly, Manning's objection in this regard is overruled. He is free to contest the validity of Movant's right to foreclosure in state court.
The court is denying relief request #11 because it does not grant in rem relief in perpetuity.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Jesus Lugo Pro Se
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank Trust National Represented By
Kristin A Zilberstein
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Rufina Partida Medina Pro Se
Movant(s):
PDQ Investments LLC as Trustee Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
[UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING TO REFLECT LATE-FILED OPPOSITION BY DEBTOR]
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Overrule objections of Debtor for the following reasons:
This is the sixth bankruptcy filed by Debtor since 2011 -- two were filed in Arizona and four were filed in this District:
--BK #1: Case no. 2:11-18927 [Arizona] -- filed 6/30/11 and dismissed 10/16/11 for failure to attend creditors' meeting
--BK #2: Case no. 2:12-04438 [Arizona] -- filed 3/7/12 and dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee.
--BK #3: Case no. 8:13-18465 [CD Cal] -- filed 10/11/13 and dismissed
10:00 AM
for failure to file a ch. 13 plan and schedules
--BK #4: Case no. 8:15-10428 [CD Cal] -- filed 1/29/15; closed without discharge for failure to file financial management course certificate.
--BK #5: Case no. 8:17-13193 [CD Cal] -- filed 8/917 and dismissed 12/20/17 with a 180-day restriction against re-filing due to abuse of the bankruptcy process.
In her bankruptcy schedules filed in this case, Debtor falsely stated that she had only one prior case, i.e., BK #5. Notwithstanding that the schedules clearly require her to list all bankruptcy cases filed by her within the past eight years, Debtor failed to disclose BK #s 1, 2, 3 and 4.
In BK #s 1, 3, 4 and 5, motions for relief from stay were filed by four separate landlords of four different residential properties in Newport Beach, CA (516 W. Oceanfront, 11 Kialoa Court, 307 Island Ave and 18 Tideline, respectively), all seeking to continue with pending unlawful detainer actions in state court. Relief from stay was granted in all four cases.
Simply put, Debtor has a pattern of 1) filing bankruptcy cases while unlawful detainer actions are pending and 2) failing to comply with bankruptcy requirements, resulting in the dismissal of most of her cases (BK #s 1, 2, 3 and 5). The circumstances described in comment #s 1, 2 and 3 establish sufficient grounds under 362(d)(1) [cause] to grant the Motion.
In addition, the bankruptcy commencment documents require debtors to disclose all prior bankruptcies filed by their spouse within the past eight years. In her Schedule I, Debtor identifies her non-filing spouse [Gregory Burke] as an unemployed paralegal. However, she failed to disclose any of his four prior bankruptcy filings -- one in Arizona and three chapter 13s in this District. In the cases filed in this District, nos. 8:13-16730, 8:15-11118, and 8:18-11379 (all of which were dismissed), relief from stay was granted to landlords seeking to proceed with pending unlawful detainer actions in state court.
Together, Debtor and her spouse have filed ten bankruptcy cases in the past
10:00 AM
eight years for the purpose of avoiding eviction.
In light of Debtor's obvious abuse of the bankruptcy process, waiver of Rule 4001(b)(3) is appropriate.
As for Debtor's argument that the three-day notice to quit was deficient, such is an issue for the state court to decide in the unlawful detainer action.
Debtor(s):
Tina Burke Pro Se
Movant(s):
Cain Leon Represented By
Marc Cohen
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and annulment.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Moses Zachery Cisneros Pro Se
Movant(s):
CHATEAU DE VILLE Represented By Scott Andrews
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Dean Gaddi Represented By
Amanda G Billyard
Movant(s):
Consumer Portfolio Services Represented By
Erin M McCartney
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
MECHANICS BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORORATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC BANK
VS.
DEBTORS AND RICHARD A MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
Docket 19
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Filed 3/8/2019 - td (3/8/2019)
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Charles G Krebs Represented By Brian C Whitaker
Joint Debtor(s):
Lindsey E Krebs Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Brian C Whitaker
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and annulment. Deny all other extraordinary relief requested in the motion.
Note: the additional relief (such as 180 day prospective relief and binding order in all future cases) is considered extraordinary and is only granted by this court where there are previous multiple bankruptcy filings.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jeff Wayne Niblack Pro Se
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Trang Diem Thi Le Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant motion.
Special Note: The granting of the motion is subject to the terms of the stipulation reached between Debtors and U.S. Bank. However, Debtors are admonished that the stipulated monthly payment of $2,967.39 is $200 higher than that listed on Debtors' Schedule J and reduces Debtors' net disposable income to $823.12. This, in turn, renders Debtors' monthly plan payments of $1,024 in months 4-60 infeasible. Thus, the plan may require modification prior to the confirmation hearing.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
10:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 7
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 3/1/2019 - td (3/1/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Quynh Thuy Lu Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 2-12-19
Docket 731
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Debtor needs to address the following issues at the hearing:
In his declaration, Debtor states that "many" of his creditors do not appear on "Pacer's" mailing list. The mailing list appearing on PACER is based upon the creditor list provided by Debtor. If Debtor's mailing list does not include all of his creditors, such presents a serious problem that must be addressed. For example, Debtor's confirmed chapter 11 plan is only binding on creditors who were served with the plan and disclosure statement. If creditors were not listed on the mailing list and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to vote on the plan, they are not bound by the terms of the plan. The court presumes Debtor would not want the case closed under such circumstances.
Debtor needs to file separate motions for turnover of the escrow funds as to Select Portfolio and Ocwen and such entities need to be served in accordance with Fed Rule Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(b)(3).
Debtor needs to confirm that a minimum of $60,000 has been paid to class 6 (unsecured creditors) as required by the confirmed.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Norman Wright Branyan Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19; 2-12-19
Docket 177
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 4/11/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 3/11/2019 (XX) - td (3/11/2019)
January 10, 2019
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to provide documentary evidence of the holder of the junior lienholder on the subject property by or before January 22, 2019 (with amended notice if necessary) (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, Debtor has not provided any documentary evidence identifying the holder or authorized agent of the holder of the second deed of trust and, therefore, this court cannot ascertain whether service of this contested matter is proper.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19; 2-12-19
Docket 179
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 4/11/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 3/11/2019 (XX) - td (3/11/2019)
January 10, 2019
[This tentative ruling has been modified since its original posting]
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to 1) provide proper service on the current holder of the second deed of trust on the subject property, and 2) file documentary evidence identifying the holder of the second deed of trust by or before January 22, 2019. (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Preliminary statement: The statements and evidence in support of this Motion are all over the place, making a coherent review of the same nearly impossible.
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, there are issues that need to be addressed:
Debtor represents that the first deed of trust was transferred from Express
10:30 AM
Capital Lending to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as servicer on April 19, 2019 and directs the court to Exhibit 1, which is the proof of claim filed by BofA, the presumed holder of the first deed of trust. However, documents attached to the proof of claim also seem to show that a) Express Capiral Lending assigned a note/deed of trust (not clear if it's the first or second) to Impac Funding Corp. [Exhibit 1, p.49] and b) Impac Funding Corp assigned its interest in the first deed of trust on April 19, 2012 (postpetition) to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as apparent servicer. [Exhibit 1, p. 50].
There is no documentation or other credible evidence that identifies Impac Funding Corporation, or any other entity, as the holder of the second deed of trust. Accordingly, the court cannot determine whether service of the Motion was proper.
Debtor needs do his research and determine the identity of the holder of the second deed of trust and properly serve that entity. Parenthetically, Debtor also needs to remit plan playments to such entity if it is someone other than Impac.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. Hrg. Held 8/19/14)
FR: 2-12-15; 8-20-15; 2-11-16; 8-4-16; 9-22-16; 11-3-16; 1-19-17; 2-16-17,
7-27-17, 1-17-18 (advanced from 1-18-18); 2-22-18; 9-6-18; 2-17-19
Docket 107
NONE LISTED -
February 12, 2015
Continue post-confirmation status conference to August 20, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by August 6, 2015. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
August 20, 2015
Continue post-confirmation status conference to February 11, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by January 28, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
February 11, 2016
10:30 AM
Continue post-confirmation status conference to August 4, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by July 21, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
August 4, 2016
Updated status report not filed. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100.00 against Debtor's counsel for failure to timely file an updated status report.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
September 22, 2016
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100.00 against Debtor's counsel for failure to timely file an updated status report or to file a motion to dismiss the case.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
January 19, 2017
Updated postconfirmation status report has not been filed. Since August, 2016, Debtor has failed to timely file postconfirmation status reports. See tentative ruling comments for matter #31 on today's calendar.
Take matter off calendar if the case is dismissed.
February 16, 2017
Continue Post Confirmation Status Conference to July 27, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.;
10:30 AM
updated status report must be filed by July 13, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
July 27, 2017
Continue Post Confirmation Status Conference to January 18, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 4, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
January 17, 2018
Debtor's counsel to appear and advise the court of the status of the 2nd distribution to class 6(b) shortfall of $2823.14. Has this shortfall been paid? If not, when will it be paid?
February 22, 2018
Continue status conference to September 6, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 23, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
September 6, 2018
10:30 AM
Continue Post Confirmation Status Conference to February 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 24, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 12, 2019
Continued to May 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. An updated status report is due April 23, 2019 unless a final decree has been entered by such date. (XX)
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Elizabeth Blackman Represented By Bert Briones
10:30 AM
Docket 142
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
The court is inclined to sustain in part and overrule in part: Sustain as to
$140,700 earmarked for unemployed personal injury attorneys fees and
$70,439.20 for medical liens; Overrule as to the balance earmarked for Debtor and for court costs.
The court assumes that the trustee is satisfied with the settlement agreement provided to him by Debtor -- it was not attached to Debtor's supplemental declaration so the court has not seen it.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required and the trustee shall lodge an order consistent wit the same within 7 days.
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01375 Sotelo et al v. Ramirez et al
FR: 9-20-18; 10-18-18; 11-15-18; 1-10-19; 2-7-19
Docket 132
NONE LISTED -
October 18, 2018
Continue hearing to November 15, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. as a holding date; Movant to file supplemental declaration with exhibits by November 1, 2018. Continue status conference to the same date/time (updated status report not required.) (XX)
The court is inclined to grant the Motion but needs to review the following documents before rendering a decision:
An executed copy of the Ramirez Family Trust;
A copy of the Trust Transfer Deed transferring the Ramirez Family Trust's interest in the subject property to Movant;
A copy of the Quitclaim Deed transferring the subject property from Movant to the Olimpia Family Trust; and
A copy of the Olimpia Family Trust
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at
10:30 AM
today's hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018
Plaintiff needs to address the following:
Reviewing the documents attached to the original complaint filed by Counter-Defendants, not all of the Unperfected Liens were a grant of Debtor’s property (title was held by the Ramirez Family Trust at the time) because the Unperfected Liens were not granted by Luis in his capacity as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust.
The SE1 Deed was executed by "Jose Luis Ramirez and Family Steel Corporation" and not by Luis as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust. RJN, Ex. 1, (Ex. B of the Complaint).
The SE2 Deed was also executed by "Jose Luis Ramirez and Family Steel Corporation" and not by Luis as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust. RJN, Ex. 1, (Ex. D of the Complaint).
In light of the foregoing, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, a genuine issue of fact may remain with regards to SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed and in which capacity Luis granted those security interests. As such, Debtor is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the §§ 544(a)(3), § 550, and § 502(d) claims for relief only on the Veras Note.
Absent a satisfactory legal argument/explanation, the court would be inclined to grant summary adjudication as to the §§ 544(a)(3), § 550, and § 502(d) claims for relief only on the Veras Note and grant partial adjudication as to the first claim for relief in that the SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed were not recorded prior to Petition Date. The motion would be denied as to the balance.
10:30 AM
January 10, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant summary adjudication as to the §§ 544(a)(3), § 550, and § 502(d) claims for relief only as to the Veras Note and grant partial adjudication as to the first claim for relief in that the SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed were not recorded prior to Petition Date. Deny the balance of the relief requested.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The court is not persuaded by the supplemental brief filed December 23, 2018 [docket #147].
The court incorporates by reference herein, its November 15, 2018 tentative ruling. See above. In response to the November 15, 2018 tentative ruling, Debtor argues that the Motion should be granted because the face of the SE1 Deed and the SE2 Deed evidences that "the parties to that transactions intended that Debtor’s Property stand as security for these debts" so Salon Envios could assert an equitable lien in Debtor’s Property. Supp. Br. at p. 3:3-5.
The counterargument that the face of the deeds evidences that "the parties to that transactions intended that Debtor’s Property stand as security" fails to address the issue of who the "parties to the transaction" truly are- Luis in his individual capacity or Luis as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust. In other words, even if Luis intended that the Property serve as collateral, Luis may not have the authority to grant an equitable lien if Luis was acting in his individual capacity because Luis did not hold title to the Property at the time. Further, and more importantly, the parties' "intent" is a factual issue and Luis intent to encumber the Property as co-trustee of the Ramirez Family Trust cannot be gleamed as a matter of law simply from the face of the deeds that make no mention of the Ramirez Family Trust. Debtor’s cited legal authorities in the Supplemental Brief do not sufficiently support her position.
In Lentz v. Lentz, (1968) 267 CA2d 891, 894, the California Court of Appeal stated that, " To establish an equitable lien, appellant must demonstrate
10:30 AM
that her deceased husband not only intended to make the real property primary security for the debt to the insurance company and the insurance policy merely collateral security, but that he had the right to do so." (reversing grant of summary judgment imposing an equitable lien on real property because triable issue of fact remained as to decedent’s intent). In this case, Debtor has not established that Luis had the "right to" pledge the Property as security.
In Grappo v. Coventry Fin. Corp., (1991) 235 CA3d 496, 509 (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 496, 509-510, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellant’s claim for an equitable lien on real property on which ex-wife constructed a new home and appellant extended loans to ex-wife but never obtained a deed of trust. The court found that the parties did not intend to create a security interest in the property. Id. Unlike the instant case, however, the ex-wife’s right to pledge the property as security was not at issue because wife held title to the real property on which the new home was built. Id. at 500.
Finally, Huber v. Danning (In re Thomas), 147 B.R. 526, 529 (BAP 9th Cir.) does not support Debtor’s position because it is undisputed that a trustee may avoid an equitable interest in property under § 544(a)(3). Here, however, Debtor has not established that an equitable interest was created since Debtor has not established that Luis had a "right" to create an equitable lien in the Property.
Viewing the evidence, i.e., the face of the SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed, in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, a genuine issue of fact remains with regards to SE1 Deed and SE2 Deed and in which capacity Luis granted those security interests.
March 12, 2019
In light of supplemental evidence submitted by Movant grant the motion as to all claims, except for the second claim for relief. In addition deny request for money judgment under Section 550 in light of the granting of the avoidance of the liens.
10:30 AM
A party is entitled to only a single remedy under Section 550. In re Taylor 599 F.3d 880, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) ("The trustee is entitled to only a single satisfaction under subsection (a) of this section." "Where the value of the property cannot be easily or readily determined . . . the correct remedy is to return the property, not awrd an estimate of the value of the property.")
In this case, Movant has established grounds for recovery of the unperfected liens as a matter of law but not entitlement to the value of such liens.
Debtor(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
Jose Luis Ramirez Sr Represented By Christopher P Walker
Herman F Cea Pro Se
The Ramirez Family Trust Pro Se
Family Steel Corporation Pro Se
First American Title Insurance Pro Se
Olimpia Family Trust, Dated Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mayanin Sotelo Pro Se
Salon Envious, Inc. Pro Se
Aurelio Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
Faviola Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01375 Sotelo et al v. Ramirez et al
FR: 11-5-15; 12-17-15; 2-11-16; 9-1-16; 10-6-16; 11-10-16; 12-15-16; 1-19-16;
3-30-17; 5-11-17; 9-7-17; 10-5-17; 11-2-17; 11-30-17; 1-11-18; 2-22-18; 4-12-18;
6-21-18; 7-31-18; 10-18-18; 11-15-18; 1-10-19; 2-7-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Prosecution Entered 6/22/18; The Cross-Complaint will Remain for Prosecution by Cross-Plaintiffs - td (6/22/2018)
November 5, 2015
The court will likely issue an Order to Show Cause why it should not abstain from adjudicating this matter per 28 USC 1334(c)(1)
December 17, 2015
Based upon the briefs filed since the last status conference, the court will not abstain at this time. The court notes that Debtor has not served the cross- defendants with the cross-complaint.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required
February 11, 2016
Date to complete discovery: July 1, 2016
Pretrial Stipulation due date: August 18, 2016
10:30 AM
Pretrial Conference: Sept. 1, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing schedule, appearances at this hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
May 11, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to August 17, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; an amended joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by August 10, 2017; any substantive pretrial motion by party Ramirez must be filed no later than June 6, 2017 for a reserved hearing date of July 11, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. LBR briefing schedule for Summary Judgment Motions applies.
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
The Joint Pretrial Stipulation must follow the format set forth in LBR 7016-1(b) (2). The court will not accept two unilateral statements posing as a joint stipulation, i.e., no separation sections for "Plaintiff's Disputed Facts" and "Defendant's Disputed Facts."
Note: If the all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
November 2, 2017
Joint pretrial stipulation not timely filed per this court's order entered Sept. 29, 2017. Parties to appear and advise the court why sanctions of $100 should not be imposed on counsel for each party for failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
November 30, 2017
10:30 AM
Joint pretrial stipulation not timely filed; updated status report re possible settlement not filed; impose sanctions against Plaintiff's attorney in the amount of
$100 for failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
January 11, 2018
The parties are to appear and advise the court re the status of the possible settlement.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
February 22, 2018
Plaintiff to appear and advise the court why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file an updated status report as ordered by the court at the 1/11/18 hearing.
April 12, 2018
Continue status conference to June 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Court to issue order to show cause why this adversary should not be dismissed due to lack of prosecution ("OSC"), which OSC shall be heard on the same date/time as the continued status conference. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required and Defendants shall service notice of the continued status conference.
June 21, 2018
10:30 AM
Take matter off calendar in light of the dismissal of the adversary proceeding.
July 31, 2018
Continue as a status conference to October 18, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Updated status report must be filed by October 4, 2018. Any pretrial motion must be filed by September 13, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is waived; Cross-Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date.
October 18, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
NOTE: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
January 10, 2019
Cross complainant to advise the court how she wishes to proceed with the adversary in light of the court's ruling re #19 on today's calendar.
Debtor(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
10:30 AM
Jose Luis Ramirez Sr Represented By Christopher P Walker
Herman F Cea Pro Se
The Ramirez Family Trust Pro Se
Family Steel Corporation Pro Se
First American Title Insurance Pro Se
Olimpia Family Trust, Dated Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mayanin Sotelo Pro Se
Salon Envious, Inc. Pro Se
Aurelio Vera Pro Se
Faviola Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
Cl. #4-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12110-ES)
Cl. #9-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12106-ES)
Cl. #7-1 Slyvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:12-12109-ES)
Cl. #10-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12112-ES)
Docket 289
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 4/11/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 2/27/2019 (XX) - td (2/27/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Docket 283
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
This matter remains under the review by the court; a tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
FR: 2-12-19
Docket 281
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: the granting of this motion moots the creditors' motion for authority to pursue avoidance actions
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
(Another Summons Issued 9/13/18) FR: 12-6-18; 1-31-19
Docket 3
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Continued to March 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Pro Se
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Docket 128
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF NEIL R. ANAPOL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
FR: 2-7-19
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Approve fees and expenses on interim basis as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
David C. Park Represented By Raymond J Seo
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Neil Anapol
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
FR: 2-12-19
Docket 31
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 3/12/2019 at 2:00 p.m. (same day); See Notice of Change of Hearing Time filed 2/5/2019, Document #56 (XX) - td (2/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 32
OFF CALENDAR: Order on Debtor's Motion to Convert Case Under 11
U.S.C. §§706(a) or 1112(a) Entered 2/6/2019; Chapter 11 Case is Convert to a Case Under Chapter 7 - td (2/7/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Palliser Represented By
Anerio V Altman
10:30 AM
FR: 12-13-18; 2-17-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order on Debtor's Motion to Convert Case Under 11
U.S.C. §§706(a) or 1112(a) Entered 2/6/2019; Chapter 11 Case is Convert to a Case Under Chapter 7 - td (2/7/2019)
December 13, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]**
Deadline to file plan/DS*: Dec. 24, 2018
Continued Status Conf: Feb. 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. (XX)
Updated Status Report Due: Jan. 24, 2019 (no report required if
discl. stmt filed by such date
*The court is aware that this deadline is Christmas Eve and that the court will be closed, however this is the deadline required for the hearing date selected by Debtor, i.e., February 7, 2019.
**Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Status Report]
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the
U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor confirm compliance status with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
John Palliser Represented By
Anerio V Altman
10:30 AM
Docket 23
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Debtors' Motion for Order Relieving Them from Order Dismissing Case Entered 2/12/2019 - td (2/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard Price Alexander Represented By Peter Holzer
Joint Debtor(s):
Donna Jean Alexander Represented By Peter Holzer
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 2-12-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues:
In light of Debtor's prior unsuccessful chapter 11 case and ultimate dismissal on the basis of bad faith, what are the changed circumstances that will result in a successful end to this case?
Why has Debtor been unable to pay mortgage payments since 2016?
On his Schedule I, Debtor lists monthly income of $15,000. Has Debtor actually grossed this amount since the filing in December 2018?
On his Schedule J, Debtor lists monthly expenses for water/sewage/garbage collection in the amount of $2,000, telephone/cell/internet/satellite in the amount of $2500 and electricity in the amount of $500. An explanation of monthly utility expenses of $5,000 will be required.
Claims bar date: 5/20/19 (notice to creditors by 3/20/19) Deadline to file plan/disc. stmt: 5/30/19
10:30 AM
Continued status conference: 6/20/19 at 10:30am; updated status report
must be filed by 6/6/19 unless a plan and disc stmt have been timely filed, in which case the requirement of an updated report will be waived. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels
10:30 AM
Docket 23
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Continue hearing to April 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor correct service issue -- JPMorgan Chase Bank not served per FRBP 7004(h) as required by FRBP 3007(a)(2) for insured depository institutions. (XX)
Tentative ruling for 4/18/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Kristy Lorraine Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Joint Debtor(s):
Mark S Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 22
SPECIAL NOTE: Original Motion filed 1/28/19, Dkt #8; Amended Motion filed 2/19/19, dkt #22 - td (2/19/2019)
March 12, 2019
This matter remains under the review by the court; a tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Future Income Payment LLC Pro Se
Movant(s):
Future Income Payment LLC Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 8
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 2/5/2019 - td (2/8/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Encore Property Holdings, LLC Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
FR: 2-7-19
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Grant motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
On June 4, 2018, Seung Hwan Jeong ("Debtor") and Amy Park Jeong ("Joint Debtor") filed a voluntary chapter 7 petition. Thomas H. Casey was appointed chapter 7 trustee ("Trustee"). On July 17, 2018, Trustee filed a "no-asset" report.
On September 7, 2018, plaintiff Jin Ree ("Plaintiff"), pro se, filed a §§ 523 and 727 complaint (the "Initial Complaint") against Debtor only. On October 11, 2018, Debtor filed a motion to dismiss the Initial Complaint (the "First Motion to Dismiss"). In response, on October 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint (the "FAC"). Debtor subsequently withdrew the motion to dismiss the Initial Complaint.
The FAC alleges causes of action under §§ 523(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(6), and 727(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4)and (a)(7). Plaintiff seeks a judgment deeming the state court default judgment entered against Debtor, and in favor of Plaintiff, on
2:00 PM
January 22, 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court, case no. BC4999476 (the "State Court Action"), in the amount of $164,755.13 (the "State Court Judgment") to be nondischargeable.
Debtor filed the instant motion to dismiss the FAC on November 8, 2018 (the "Motion")(AP dkt. #19]. Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), incorporated herein by FRBP 7012, Debtor seeks dismissal of the FAC for failure to state a claim for relief.
Pleading Standards Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) FRCP 8
CLAIM FOR RELIEF. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
FRCP 9
...
Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.
In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Desaigoudar v. Meyercord, 223 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 2000)("Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the PSLRA require Desaigoudar to plead her case with a high degree of
2:00 PM
meticulousness."). If particular averments of fraud are insufficiently pled under Rule 9(b), a district court should "disregard" those averments, or "strip" them from the claim. The court should then examine the allegations that remain to determine whether they state a claim. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2003). Rule 9(b) supplements but does not supplant Rule 8(a)'s notice pleading. U.S. ex rel. Grubbs v. Kanneganti, 565 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
FRCP 9(b), made applicable herein by FRBP 7009, is intended to ensure that the defendant in a fraud claim will have adequate notice of the nature of the charges against him, permitting him a meaningful opportunity to respond. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio, 695 F.Supp. 1053, 1058-1059 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (citing Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985)). The plaintiff is required to identify "circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations." Id. (citing Walling v. Beverly Enterprises, 476 F.2d 393, 397 (9th Cir. 1973)). In "alleging fraud or mistake,’ Rule 9(b) requires a party to ‘state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake,’ including ‘the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged."’ Ebeid ex rel. U.S. v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)(citation omitted) The "plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.’" Id. (citation omitted).
Standard for Dismissal of the Complaint
To survive a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and probability of entitlement to relief. In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no
2:00 PM
more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
In Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007), the Supreme Court established more stringent notice-pleading standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A plaintiff is required to provide more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ...." Id. The plaintiff must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly overruled the more liberal Conley v. Gibson standard, which held that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. With the new standard in Twombly, the Supreme Court has said that the facts asserted in support of the claim need to cross the line "from conceivable to plausible."
COUNT 1 – 523(a)(2)(A)
11 U.S.C. §523
(a) 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—
…
for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained, by—
false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor's or an insider's financial condition;
For a debt to be non-dischargeable pursuant to § 532(a)(2)(A), the following five elements must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence:
the debtor made the representations;
2:00 PM
that at the time he knew they were false;
that he made them with the intention and purpose of deceiving the creditor;
that the creditor [justifiably] relied on such representations;
that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made.
In re Kirsh, 973 F.2d. 1454, 1457 (9th Cir. 1992).
For a debt to be non-dischargeable pursuant to § 532(a)(2)(A), the following five elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the debtor made the 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 justifiably relied on such representations; and (5) that the creditor sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of the representations having been made. In re Kirsh, 973 F.2d. 1454, 1457 (9th Cir. 1992). The § 523(a)(2)(A) elements mirror the elements of common law fraud. In re Younie, 211 B.R. 367, 373 (9th Cir. BAP 1997). The common law elements of misrepresentation, however, are not applicable to a cause of action for actual fraud under § 523(a)(2)(A). Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge any debt for money, property, services or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud. The creditor bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following five elements: (1) misrepresentation, fraudulent omission or deceptive conduct by the debtor; (2) knowledge of the falsity or deceptiveness of the representation or omission; (3) an intent to deceive; (4) the creditor's justifiable reliance on the representation or conduct; and (5) damage to the creditor proximately caused by reliance on the debtor's representations or conduct. Ghomeshi v. Sabban (In re Sabban), 600 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010).
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that the debt reflected in the State Court Judgment should be dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) "because the debt was created through Debtor’s own fraud." See, FAC, p. 4:1. However, the FAC alleges no specific fraudulent conduct by Debtor, such as what misrepresentations were made, to whom were they made, when were they made, etc. The FAC also fails to allege any of the other elements of fraud or
2:00 PM
misrepresentation. Conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.
Debtor’s argument that res judicata bars this nondischargeabilty litigation is also unpersuasive because the dischargeability of the State Court Judgment under § 523 and the denial of Debtor’s discharge under § 727 was not at issue, or decided, in the State Court Action.
Count I does not adequately to state a plausible claim under 523(a)(2)(A) because Plaintiff has not met the pleading requirements of FRCP 8 and 9 by failing to plead any particular facts regarding fraud. Plaintiff’s allegations that Debtor "intend to not to pay for the products and to apply bankruptcy if money collection are acted against him" [sic] and that Debtor "planned to make tax report fraud and bankruptcy fraud to IRS and bankruptcy court at the time of purchasing the products" is devoid of any particular facts regarding the purported fraud. Moreover, there is no legally cognizable connection between Debtor’s conduct at the time of the transaction and the filing of a bankruptcy case and tax returns several years later. See, FAC, p. 2:11-13 and 3:14-16.
The Opposition does not address these pleading deficiencies. Instead, Plaintiff appears to argue that all facts supporting fraud will be determined through discovery. This is insufficient.
COUNT II -- § 523(a)(6)
Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge debts arising from a debtor’s "willful and malicious" injury to another person or to the property of another. Barboza v. New Form, Inc. (In re Barboza), 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008). The "willful" and "malicious" requirements are conjunctive and subject to separate analysis. Id.
A "malicious" injury requires: "(1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse." Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich), 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2001). The willful injury requirement speaks to the state of mind necessary for nondischargeability. An exacting requirement, it is satisfied when a debtor harbors either a subjective intent to harm, or a subjective belief that harm is
2:00 PM
substantially certain. In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002); see also In re Jercich, 238 F.3d at 1208. The injury must be deliberate or intentional, "not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury." Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998). Thus, "debts arising from recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the compass of § 523(a)(6)." Id. at 64.
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that "Debtor willfully failed to pay products. Instead, Debtor willfully and maliciously planned the bankruptcy in advance, if debt collection process would start, in advance already." See, FAC, p. 4:10-11. This allegation is implausible on its face. The transaction regarding the purchase of products took place in 2006 and 2007. However, the bankruptcy case was not filed until 2018, eleven to twelve years later.
"Something more than a knowing breach of contract is required before conduct comes within the ambit of § 523(a)(6)" and that "something more" is "tortious conduct" which is conduct that constitutes a tort under state law.
Lockerby v. Sierra, 535 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). Here Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts of "tortious conduct" by Debtor. In fact, like Count I, Plaintiff does not allege any facts, but rather merely recites the statutory language of § 523(a)(6). As with Count I, Plaintiff states that specific facts will be determined after discovery. This is insufficient pleading under FRCP 8.
COUNTS III & IV - § 727(a)(3) and 727(a)(4)
11 U.S.C. §§727 (a)(3) and 724(a)(4)
The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—
…
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 transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case;
…
the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case—
2:00 PM
made a false oath or account;
presented or used a false claim;
(5)
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
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;
Section § 727(a)(3) requires a showing that (1) the debtor failed to maintain or preserve adequate records, and (2) the failure makes it impossible to ascertain the debtor’s financial condition and material business transactions.
In this case, Plaintiff alleges in Count III that Debtor’s tax return and bankruptcy papers were fraudulent, and the facts supporting this allegation are the scheduled amount of Debtor’s monthly income, $2,740, and monthly expenses in the amount of $5142. See, FAC, p. 4:26-5:3. Plaintiff fails to allege how the fact that Debtor’s monthly expenses are higher than his monthly income supports the claim that Debtor has concealed, destroyed or mutilated any documents or other records. As stated, the conclusory allegations regarding 727(a)(3) are insufficient and do not state a plausible claim.
Pursuant to § 727(a)(4)(A) permits denial of discharge where a debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath or account. "A false statement or an omission in the debtor's bankruptcy schedules or statement of financial affairs can constitute a false oath." Retz v. Samson (In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Khalil v. Developers Sur. & Indem. Co. (In re Khalil), 379
B.R. 163, 172 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). To prevail, a plaintiff must show that "(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
2:00 PM
fraudulently." Id. (quoting Roberts v. Erhard (In re Roberts) 331 B.R. 876, 882 (9th Cir. BAP 2005)).
Additionally, the statement must be material fact. In re Aubrey, 111 B.R. 268, 274 (9th Cir. BAP 1990). A statement is material if it bears on the debtor’s business transactions, the debtor’s estate, the discovery of assets, or the existence and disposition of the debtor’s property. In re Wills, 243 B.R. 58, 62 (9th Cir. BAP 1999). A false oath denial of discharge requires that the debtor have the false statement with fraudulent intent. The debtor’s intent must be actual, not constructive. In re Willis, 243 B.R. 58, 64 (9th Cir. BAP 1999). Fraudulent intent can be provided by circumstantial evidence. Id. Nondisclosure of creditors (and debts) can be just as important as nondisclosure of assets. In re Khalil, supra, 79 B.R. 177.
The allegations in Count IV regarding 727(a)(4) are inadequate. Plaintiff first alleges that Debtor has made a false oath by "falsely listing exempt assets." However, the FAC is silent as to which exemptions are false or why they are false. Plaintiff next alleges that Debtor has under-reported his income because his monthly income is less than his monthly expenses. The fact that Debtor may not have sufficient income to pay all of his monthly expense is insufficient on its face to support a claim that the stated income is false.
A plaintiff is required to provide more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action " Twombly, supra, at
561. Plaintiff’s offer to "clarify" these allegations through the discovery process, see, FAC, p. 5:28, is unpersuasive also because the allegations must but plausible on the face of the FAC. "To survive a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, supra, at 1949.
OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE MOTION/FAC
.. Debtor has raised the issue of res judicata in the Motion, i.e., that Plaintiff could have and should have raised the issue of fraud at the time he filed the state court complaint in 2012. Plaintiff will need to address the issue of why fraud was not
2:00 PM
raised in the state court complaint and why the doctrine of res judicata does not apply here.
.. The FAC only alleges counts under 727(a)(3) and 727(a)(4). However, the prayer for relief also asserts 727(a)(2) and 727(a)(7) as well as 727(c), (d), and
(e) without any accompanying allegations. The court notes that 727(d) and (e) relate to the revocation of a discharge – Debtor has not yet received a discharge in this case so there is nothing to revoke.
Leave to Amend
Leave to amend a complaint or claim is generally within the discretion of the bankruptcy court and is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Mende
v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 670 F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1982). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (made applicable to this proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015) provides that a party may amend the party’s pleading by leave of court and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit applies this rule with "extreme liberality." Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997). In exercising its discretion, a bankruptcy court "must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." In re Magno, 216 B.R. 34 (9th Cir. BAP 1997). A bankruptcy court considers the following factors in determining whether a motion to amend should be granted:
(1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party. Hurn v. Retirement Fund Trust of Plumbing, Etc., 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981).
Though Plaintiff has already filed a complaint and an amended complaint, the FAC, the court believes he should be afforded one final opportunity to file a complaint that meets the pleading standards noted hereinabove.
2:00 PM
Section 523(a)(6) excepts from discharge debts arising from a debtor’s "willful and malicious" injury to another person or to the property of another. Barboza v. New Form, Inc. (In re Barboza), 545 F.3d 702, 706 (9th Cir. 2008). The "willful" and "malicious" requirements are conjunctive and subject to separate analysis. Id.
A "malicious" injury requires: "(1) a wrongful act, (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes injury, and (4) is done without just cause or excuse." Petralia v. Jercich (In re Jercich), 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2001). The willful injury requirement speaks to the state of mind necessary for nondischargeability. An exacting requirement, it is satisfied when a debtor harbors either a subjective intent to harm, or a subjective belief that harm is substantially certain. In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002); see also In re Jercich, 238 F.3d at 1208. The injury must be deliberate or intentional, "not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury." Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998). Thus, "debts arising from recklessly or negligently inflicted injuries do not fall within the compass of § 523(a)(6)." Id. at 64. "Something more than a knowing breach of contract is required before conduct
2:00 PM
comes within the ambit of § 523(a)(6)" and that "something more" is "tortious conduct" which is conduct that constitutes a tort under state law. Lockerby v. Sierra, 535 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008).
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
FR: 2-12-19
(Rescheduled from 3/12/19 at 10:30 am)
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
FR: 12-6-18; 2-7-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 6 2018
Continue status conference to February 7, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss. Updated status report not required for the February 7, 2019 hearing. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
FR: 12-20-18; 1-29-19
Docket 623
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01190 Marshack v. SD Medical Clinic, Inc. et al
Petition Transfers; and 3) Turnover of Property of the Estate (set at s/c held 5-18-17)
FR: 11-3-16; 12-15-16; 2-16-17; 5-4-17; 5-18-17; 11-16-17; 1-17-18; 3-22-18;
(advanced from 1-18-18); 3-29-18; 9-6-18; 11-8-18
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Status Conference is Vacated, Per Order to Attend Mediation Entered 9/12/2018 - td (9/12/2018)
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
SD Medical Clinic, Inc. Pro Se
Pacific Western Bank Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By Caroline Djang
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01111 Skipper v. United States Department of Education
FR: 9-6-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 4/18/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 3/8/2019 (XX) - td (3/8/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to properly serve the complaint and to timely file the proof of service re the same with the court. (XX)
Plaintiff has not filed the proof of service showing proper service of the complaint on the defendant, a United States agency. The proof of service attached to unilateral status report shows service at a P.O. box which is improper. Plaintiff will need to obtain another summons and properly serve the defendant. Plaintiff also needs to review the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court Manual of the Bankruptcy Court of the Central Dist of California re the proper method of service.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. As no progress has been made re the filing of a proof of service showing proper service to Defendant, the court will issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not Be Dismissed Due to Lack of Prosecution ("OSC"), which OSC shall be set for December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
- OSC issued 11/16/18, dkt #5 - td (11/16/18)
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by March 5, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Rubin J Skipper Pro Se
Defendant(s):
United States Department of Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Reuben J Skipper Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01142 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
FR: 11-8-18; 3-7-19
Docket 3
NONE LISTED -
November 8, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 1, 2019 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: Dec. 21, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Mar. 7, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Feb. 21, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
March 19, 2019
Off calendar -- motion to approve settlement dismiss this adversary proceeding granted at hearing on March 12, 2019.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01160 Schlissel v. Educational Credit Management Corporation
FR: 5-31-18; 12-20-18; 3-7-19
Docket 16
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 5/16/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 2/25/2019 (XX) - td (2/25/2019)
May 31, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 1, 2018 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: Nov. 16, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Dec. 6, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Aileen Merrill Schlissel Pro Se
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Educational Credit Management Represented By
Scott A Schiff
Plaintiff(s):
Aileen Schlissel Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 31
OFF CALENDAR: Withdrawal of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay filed 3/12/2019 - td (3/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric Michael Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Joint Debtor(s):
Celena Renee Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Movant(s):
Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC Represented By
Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jorge Luis Oseguera Sr Pro Se
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a Represented By
Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
DEBTOR
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Special Note: The Motion is being granted under 362(d)(1) for cause solely on the basis that Debtor has expressed an intent to surrender the property. Movant has otherwise not established lack of equity or insufficient equity cushion to protect its interest in the property (38% equity cushion per the Motion).
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stacey White Kinney Represented By Richard G Heston
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(2013 Chrysler Town & Country) PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Larry James Walker II Represented By Joseph M Tosti
Joint Debtor(s):
Anastasia Walker Represented By Joseph M Tosti
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(2014 Chrysler Town & Country) PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Larry James Walker II Represented By Joseph M Tosti
Joint Debtor(s):
Anastasia Walker Represented By Joseph M Tosti
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Celia Yazmin Nunez Represented By A Mina Tran
Movant(s):
BNG Acquisitions, LTD. Represented By Joseph Cruz
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
[JOHN M. WOLFE, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTE]
Docket 204
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Robert A Harris Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Trustee(s):
John M Wolfe (TR) Represented By Rika Kido
Misty A Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson Leonard M Shulman
10:30 AM
Elyza P Eshaghi
10:30 AM
[SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN, LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 202
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Special Note: The court is concerned about a trustee's general bankruptcy counsel charging the estate for essentially "supervising" the work done by experienced special counsel as was apparently done in this case. The Pagter and Perry Isaacson firm is certainly experienced enough to prosecute avoidance litigation without oversight and supervision by Applicant -- if not, they should not be employed at all. That said, the court will not reduce the requested distribution to Applicant because the case is administratively insolvent. Applicant should consider itself admonished.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Robert A Harris Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Trustee(s):
John M Wolfe (TR) Represented By Rika Kido
Misty A Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson Leonard M Shulman Elyza P Eshaghi
10:30 AM
[PAGTER AND PERRY ISAACSON, SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL FOR THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 201
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Robert A Harris Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Trustee(s):
John M Wolfe (TR) Represented By Rika Kido
Misty A Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson
10:30 AM
Leonard M Shulman Elyza P Eshaghi
10:30 AM
Cl. #4-1 | LBS Financial Credit Union | $20,811.70 |
Cl. #5-1 | Keybank N.A. | $22,677.92 |
Cl. #6-1 | Keybank N.A. | $2,337.42 |
Cl. #7-1 | Keybank N.A. | $5,395.67 |
Docket 120 | ||
Courtroom Deputy: - NONE LISTED - |
March 19, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Carmen Louisa Ponce Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 104
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The Motion fails to establish Debtor's ability to fund a confirmable plan for the reasons set forth in the chapter 7 trustee's opposition, which the court incorporates by reference herein. In particular, the court notes the following:
1. Debtor's disposable income of $884 per month is insufficient to fund a plan that would pay administrative expenses incurred by the chapter7 trustee, unsecured creditors as much as they would receive in a chapter 7, and prepetition arrearages of $12,584.78 owed to US Bank. As to the latter, see proof of claim # 3-1. Further, Debtor does not confirm that all postpetition mortage payments to US Bank or that all postpetition property taxes have been paid -- if not such postpetition arrearages and/or taxes would have to be provided for as well.
3. The bottom line is the Motion does not establish that Debtor is eligible to be a debtor in a chapter 13 with regular income sufficient to fund a chapter 13 plan which provides for chapter 7 administrative expenses, distribution to unsecured creditors equal to what such creditors would receive in a chapter 7, and the curing of prepetition (and possibly postpetition) mortgage arrearages.
10:30 AM
2. The family contribution declaration filed by Debtor regarding an additional
$1,000 per month, or $60,000 over the life of the plan, is woefully insufficient. First, Debtor's mother cannot commit for the other unnamed family members. Second, she does not indicate how much she will be contributing, whether she has the financial ability to do so, and whether she is committing to make such contributions for 60 months. Third, even if the family contribution could be substantiated, as the trustee has pointed out $113,000 ($1884 x 60 months) is insufficient to pay all claims listed by the trustee, plus at least
$12,584.78 for prepetition arrearages.
Debtor(s):
Bryson N Nazareno Represented By Edward A Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
FR: 5-31-18; 7-31-18; 10-18-18; 3-7-19
Docket 105
NONE LISTED -
May 31, 2018
There is a service issue with this objection. Pursuant to LBR 9009-1(b)(4), regarding court-approved forms, "[r]egardless of whether a court-approved form is mandatory or optional, no language or provisions may be altered or deleted from a form, whether a form is filed or lodged." Proof of Service of Documents are one such mandatory form.
Here, Debtor's Notice of Objection includes a Proof of Service Document (Form F 3007-1.1.NOTICE.OBJ.CLAIM), which begins with the phrase "I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding." (emphasis added). However, Debtor signed this form despite the fact that she is a party to this bankruptcy case. See Docket No. 107, p.2.
Debtor's Objection to claim includes a Proof of Service Document (Form F 9013-3.1.PROOF.OF.SERVICE), which has been modified in violation of LBR 9009-1(b)(4), to only say "I am over the age of 18. My business address is..." See Docket No. 105, p.13.
Therefore, service needs to be corrected to comply with the exact language of the mandatory court form re the proof of service. Stated otherwise, someone other than Debtor needs to serve the Notice and the Objection. In addition, the Notice and Objection should be served on Claimant's attorney of record,
10:30 AM
Scott A. Schiff, 16255 Ventura Blvd., Suite 706, Encino CA 91436.
The court notes that this objection seems to be either in part or in whole duplicative of a pending adversary proceeding -- Adv. #18-01071 in which Education Credit Managment Corporation is the defendant. If this is the case, perhaps Debtor should consider withdrawing this objection and proceeding solely with the adversary proceeding.
July 31, 2018
Continue hearing to September 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Claimant to provide a full explanation of the documents attached to the Proof of Claim No. 4 as well as documentary evidence of the assignment of the claim to it.
Claimant shall file its supplemental pleading(s) by August 23, 2018 and Debtor may file a final reply by September 6, 2018.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service:
ECMC complains that the objection was not served pursuant to FRBP 7004. Service of an objection to claim pursuant to FRBP 7004 is no longer required in light of the 2017 Amendments to FRBP 3007(a)(1)(2)(A) which provides that the objection "shall be served on a claimant by first-class mail to the person most recently designated on the claimant's original or amended proof of claim as the person to receive notices, at the address so indicated." FRBP 3007(a)(1)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) only require 7004 service if the claimant is the United States or an insured depository institution. See also Advisory Committee Notes to the 2017 Amendment: "Rule 7004 does not apply to the service of most claim objections." As ECMC is a private corporation, service per FRBP 3007(a)(2)(A) is sufficient. Here, ECMC was served to the person and at the address indicated on its proof of claim (POC).
Merits
10:30 AM
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219
B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). Courts generally agree that the bases for claim disallowance are limited to those specified in section 502. In re SNTL Corp., 571 F.3d 826, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2009). For example, section 502(b)(1) provides that a claim is allowable unless it 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 U.S.C. §502(b)(1).
Form of the Proof of Claim
The court has no problem with the form on which the claim was presented. It sufficiently asserts a claim and not an interest.
Sufficiency of the Documentation
Debtor's objection regarding sufficiency of the writings upon which the POC is based is well-taken. While it is true that Debtor has not come forward with evidence to rebut the amount of the overall claim, the argument regarding the sufficiency of the documentation accompanying the POC is sufficient to shift the ultimate burden to ECMC. The court has reviewed the documents attached to the POC and cannot discern how the documentation supports the claim nor can the court discern what the various columns and figures mean. Further, it is difficult to ascertain whether payments have been applied. More information/explanation is required.
Claimant has the ultimate burden of proof.
Dischargeability
This issue can only be determined through the pending
10:30 AM
adversary proceeding and will not be addressed through the claims objection process. See FRBP.
March 19, 2019
Overrule the Objection in part; Sustain the Objection in part. Overrule as to
$171,208.70 (representing principal of $104,864.72 and interest of
$66,343.98); sustain as to costs in the amount of $41,605.89.
Special note: The tentative ruling is without prejudice to ECMC's right to file an amended proof of claim or or either party's right to seek relief under FRBP 3008. Regarding the filing of an amended proof of claim, the court is perplexed by ECMC's argument that it cannot file an amended proof of claim until an order is entered regarding PHEAA's motion for an order allowing withdrawal of its proof of claim no. 9-1. Following a hearing on such motion held on December 13, 2018, this court entered its Order ... Allowing Withdrawal of Proof of Claim Number 9-1 on December 27, 2018 [docket # 418].
Basis for Tentative Ruling
By way of background, on February 20, 2018, Lenore Luann Albert- Sheridan ("Debtor") filed a voluntary chapter 13 petition. At the confirmation hearing held on June 19, 2018, the Court denied confirmation of Debtor's chapter 13 plan and converted the case to chapter 7. Jeffrey I. Golden is the duly appointed chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee").
Educational Credit Management Corporation ("ECMC") filed proof of claim number 4 ("POC #4) on April 11, 2018, in the amount of $212,542.10 based on "Money Loaned – Student Loan."
On April 20, 2018, Debtor commenced adversary proceeding 18-01071 (the "Adversary Proceeding"), a complaint seeking a declaration that the same student loans at issue are not qualified education loans or alternatively that they are dischargeable due to undue hardship. A status conference for
10:30 AM
this adversary and the status of Debtor’s compliance with discovery requests is set for March 21, 2019.
Also, on April 20, 2018, Debtor filed the instant objection to POC #4 (the "Objection"). The Objection was originally set for hearing on May 31, 2018; at that hearing, the Court continued the matter to allow Debtor to correct a proof of service issue and to serve the Notice and Objection on Claimant's attorney of record.
At the continued July 31, 2018 hearing, after finding that Debtor has
corrected service, the Court continued the hearing to October 18, 2018 to allow ECMC to file additional supplemental pleadings to address the sufficiency of documentation supporting POC 4. The October 18, 2018 hearing was continued to March 7, 2018 on the Court’s own motion due to Debtor’s pending recusal motion. The Court subsequently continued the March 7, 2018 hearing to March 19, 2019 on its own motion.
Merits of Claim Objection
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). Courts generally agree that the bases for claim disallowance are limited to those specified in section 502. In re SNTL Corp., 571 F.3d 826, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2009). For example, section 502(b)
provides that a claim is allowable unless it 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 U.S.C. §502(b)(1).
Here, the Court previously noted in its July 31, 2019 tentative ruling:
10:30 AM
"2. Sufficiency of the Documentation
Debtor's objection regarding sufficiency of the writings upon which
the POC is based is well-taken. While it is true that Debtor has not come forward with evidence to rebut the amount of the overall claim, the argument regarding the sufficiency of the documentation accompanying the POC is sufficient to shift the ultimate burden to ECMC. The court has reviewed the documents attached to the POC and cannot discern how the documentation supports the claim nor can the court discern what the various columns and figures mean. Further, it is difficult to ascertain whether payments have been applied. More information/explanation is required. Claimant has the ultimate burden of proof."
In response to the Court’s tentative ruling, ECMC filed its Supplemental Response, along with the declarations of Kerry Klisch and Cristin O’Keefe, which provides sufficient documentation to support ECMC’s POC 4. A brief factual background of Debtor’s students loan history is informative.
Factual Background of POC 4
Debtor, from 1987 to 1996, took out a total of 14 student loans, but only 11 are presently at issue. O'Keefe Decl., ¶13; Kerry Klisch Decl., ¶ 6. The 11 loans that are at issue (the "ECMC Loans") are identified by their National Student Loa Data System ("NSLDS") loan numbers and their ECMC loan numbers because NSLDS loan numbers are not the same as the ECMC loan numbers. O'Keefe Decl, ¶ 13; Klisch Decl., ¶8.
ECMC Loan # | NLDS # | Principal Loan Amount | Note | |
1 | 12 | $ 7,500 | 1 | |
2 | 11 | $ 10,000 | 2 | |
3 | 9 | $ 3,000 | 3 | |
4 | 8 | $5,500 | 4 | |
5 | 7 | $ 7,000 | 4 | |
6 | 6 | $ 3,000 | 4 | |
7 | 5 | $ 8,500 | 5 | |
8 | 4 | $ 7,000 | 5 | |
10:30 AM
9 | 3 | $ 3,000 | 6 |
10 | 1 | $ 8,500 | 7 |
11 | 2 | $ 10,000 | 7 |
Total: | $73,000 |
See, O'Keefe Decl., ¶13; Klisch Decl., ¶6-8. The 11 loans were disbursed pursuant to 7 promissory notes executed by Debtor. Klisch Decl., Ex. A.
ECMC's Second Loan went into repayment on or about May 18, 1997, and the remaining ECMC Loans went into repayment on November 18, 1997, following Debtor's automatic six-month grace period post-graduation from the University of the Pacific in May 1997. Klisch Decl., ¶9 and Ex. C, p. 27 and 54 (NSLDS Loan History and Details).
Upon entering into "repayment" on all of the Loans, Debtor requested and was granted multiple periods of deferments and forbearances between November 18, 1997 and March 8, 2000, the time at which she filed her first bankruptcy, 8:00-bk-11922, filed in the Central District of California. Klisch Decl., ¶10 and Ex. D (Computer Screenshots of non-repayments periods).
Between the time that the ECMC Loans initially went into repayment and the date that Debtor first filed bankruptcy (March 8, 2000), Debtor made total payments of only $413.51. No other payments were made. Klisch Decl.,
¶11. Thus, the total balance of the ECMC Loans was approximately
$93,064.04 at the time of Debtor's first bankruptcy filing. Klisch Decl., ¶13.
Due to Debtor's first bankruptcy case the lenders of the ECMC Loans filed bankruptcy claims with the guarantor, PHEAA on or about June 14, 2000. PHEAA paid the claims and all right, title, and interest in the ECMC Loans transferred to PHEAA on or about July 7, 2000. Klisch Dec;., ¶12.
These lenders also assigned their bankruptcy claims to PHEAA. See, Debtor’s Supp. Reply, Ex. A, p. 5-29. PHEAA subsequently prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the adversary proceeding filed by Debtor to find the ECMC Loans nondischargeable. Klisch Decl., ¶15.
10:30 AM
Upon the conclusion of the first adversary proceeding, the ECMC
Loans were repurchased by the lenders and once again entered into repayment on June 20, 2002. Klisch Decl., ¶16. Debtor defaulted again, the lenders field new default claims with PHEAA, which were paid on July 11, 2003. Klisch Decl., ¶¶17-18.
After PHEAA unsuccessfully attempted to collect on the ECMS Loans, PHEAA assigned the ECMS Loans to the Dept of Ed on September 25, 2007. O’Keefe Decl., ¶14.
The Dept of Ed has held the ECMC Loans from approximately September 25, 2007 to March 14, 2018. Klisch Decl., ¶22; O'Keefe Decl.,
¶14, 17. During this time, the Dept of Ed received payments of $1,663.74 were collected from Debtor pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program ("TOP"). O'Keefe Decl., ¶¶6 and 17.
After Debtor filed the instant case, the Dept of Ed assigned the ECMC Loans to ECMC on March 14, 2018. Klisch Decl., ¶23; O'Keefe Decl., ¶15 and Ex. J. The total amount assigned was $171,208.70, consisting of $104,864.72 in principal and $66,343.98 in interest. Klisch Decl., ¶23; O'Keefe Decl., ¶¶15, 18 and Ex. L.
Pursuant to federal law, ECMC added collection costs to Debtor's ECMC Loans in the total amount of $41,605.89, bringing Debtor's total loan balance to $212,542.19. Klisch Decl, ¶28.
ECMC Supporting Documents and Declarations Rebut Debtor’s Arguments
Debtor has raised several arguments that have been rebutted by ECMC.
First, as a preliminary matter, Debtor’s informal evidentiary objection to the declaration of Kerry Klisch on the grounds that Klisch is not a custodian of records for Law Access or PHEAA, or that the records were not of the kind made in the regular course of ECMC business is unpersuasive and should be overruled. Klisch’s declaration sufficiently
10:30 AM
establishes that she is a custodian of records for ECMC’s records. Klisch works for ECMC Shared Services Company ("ESMCSSC"), which is the sister company of ECMC. In her role, Klisch reviews account servicing, transactions, and payments histories of loans assigned to ECMC by the Dept of Ed. In her role, Klisch had direct access and control to the loan records maintained by, or created by, ECMC, in its regular course of business for ECMC. See, Klisch, p. 2-3, ¶¶1-4. Furthermore, Debtor has made no objection to the declaration of Cristin O’Keefe also offered by ECMC in support of ECMC.
Second, Debtor’s argument that ECMC failed to provide adequate documentation has been addressed. As discussed above, ECMC has provided the additional declaration of Klisch and O’Keefe to support POC
Klisch is a litigation specialist for ECMCSSC. Klisch, p. 2, ¶1. O’Keefe is a loan analyst with the Dept of Ed. O’Keefe, p. 2, ¶1. ECMC has also included several additional documents, including the promissory notes, NLDS Loan History and Details, and Financial Transactions generated from the Debt Management Collections Systems database. See, O’Keefe, Ex. A-J; Klisch, Ex. A, C, and D.
Third, EMC has also accounted for all payments made by Debtor towards the ECMC Loans, which total $2,077.25. See, O’Keefe Decl., p. 10:5-8 and Ex. L.
Debtor’s own documents establish that ECMC has accounted for Debtor’s prior payments. Debtor provided evidence of an $1,490.74 tax refund that was applied to non-IRS debt on November 14, 2016. Debtor Supp. Reply, Ex. 3, p. 33. This $1,490.74 was accounted for in ECMC’s Financial Transactions chart. O’Keefe Decl., Ex. J, p. 34. Furthermore, the 1098-Student Loan Interest Statement attached to Debtor’s original Objection refers to this same payment. Obj., Ex. A. The student loan interest statement states that $1,466.73 was received for student loan interest. ECMC’s Financial Transactions chart indicates that again
$1,490.74 was received as TOP (Treasury Offsetting Program) and of that amount, $24.01 was charged as fees. Thus, $1,490.74 minus $24.01=
$1,466.73, the amount on the Student Loan Interest Statement.
10:30 AM
Debtor’s argument disputing the accounting of previous payments,
see Obj., p. 2:19-20 and Supp. Reply, p. 2, ¶6, is unpersuasive because Debtor has failed to provide any evidence of such payments. Debtor declares that she was paying "over $700.00 per month back on my student loans" and again "[n]othing in the claims shows a credit for those payments made." Obj. p. 4, ¶2. Yet, no evidence of these alleged payments, which would be substantial, have been provided, e.g., cancelled checks or confirmation of electronic payments.
Fourth, Debtor’s arguments that the ECMC Loans were not property assigned is undermined by Debtor’s own supporting documents (notice of transfer of claims from lenders to PHEAA during Debtor’s first bankruptcy) and the assignment from Dept of Ed to ECMC. See, ECMC Supp.
Response, Ex. J; Debtor Supp. Reply, Ex. 1, p. 5-29. Regarding Debtor’s specific allegation that the assignments between PHEAA and the government are missing, while actual copies of the actual assignment documents were not provided (assuming they exist), the NSLDS Loan details and the report from the Dept of Ed’s Debt Collection System provide the dates of the assignment from PHEAA and the Dept of Ed. See, O’Keefe Decl., p. 9, ¶ 14 and Ex. I; Klisch Decl., p. 6-7, ¶¶12 and 16.
Fifth, Debtor’s argument that the ECMC Loans were not student loans, but were actually private loans, is unpersuasive because Debtor’s screenshot from Moody’s website only indicates that the ECMC Loans may have been part of a pool of student loans that were securitized. See, Supp. Reply, p. 2, ¶4 and Ex. 2, p. 30-33.
Sixth, Debtor further argues that "interest cannot be capitalized. See, Supp. Reply, p. 2, ¶7. However, Debtor offers no factual or legal support for these arguments as the basis for disallowance. ECMC, on the other hand, has provided sufficient support to the amount of principal and interest claimed in POC 4.
Finally, the Court does not need to address ECMC’s argument that its claim is likely higher due to increased balance for ECMC Loan 1 due to PHEAA’s accounting errors because this issue is not ripe since ECMC has not yet filed an amended POC 4. See, Klisch Decl., ¶¶30-32.
10:30 AM
In sum, ECMC, as the claimant, bears the ultimate burden of proving the validity of its POC 4. Per ECMC Supplemental Response and supplemental declarations, ECMC has met its burden as to the principal and interest set forth in POC #4 in the amount of $171,208.70.
ECMC Supporting Documents and Declarations Do Not Support the Amount of Collection Costs Added to POC 4
POC 4 includes collection costs in the amount of $41,605.89. Kirsch Decl, p. 11,¶28. Per ECMC, federal law requires collection costs to be assessed against defaulted student loan borrowers, according to a formula set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 30.60. See, Kirsch Decl, p. 8 and 11, ¶¶19 and
24-28. Yet, ECMC has not provided any details on how it calculated the
$41,605.89. Per the 34 C.F.R. § 30.60 (include in the Applicable Law section above), the formula requires certain information that is not provided in ECMC’s pleadings, for example, the commission rate payable by the Dept of Ed. Accordingly, the Court cannot confirm whether this calculation was correct. Since ECMC bears the ultimate burden of proving the amounts claimed in its POC 4, ECMC has failed to meet it burden as it pertains to the collection costs.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Movant(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 68
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Grant motion if Trustee agrees to the language requested by Wells Fargo Bank in its non-opposition to the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearances are required if Movant accepts the order language requested by Wells Fargo. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Eugene Martin Huapaya Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 67
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Overrule objection to allowance of Western Equipment's asserted secured portion of the claim; Sustain objection as to the value of the secured portion of the claim; Grant request for protective order re Claim 15-1 and for order instructing claimant to file amended claim that redacts bank account numbers.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor states that claimant's UCC-1 statement fails to meet the specificity requirements of Cal. Comm. Code 9108 because it does not include "specific serial numbers on the Collateral Schedule A". However, the Assembly Committee Comment 2 to 9108 states the exact opposite, to wit:
"The purpose of requiring a description of collateral in a security agreement under Section 9203 is evidentiary. The test of sufficiency of a description under this section, as under former Section 9110, is that the description do the job assigned to it: make possible the identification of the collateral described. This section rejects any requirement that a description is insufficient unless it is exact and detailed (the so-called “serial number” test)." (emphasis added)
10:30 AM
Debtor cites no legal authority contrary to the State Assembly's own
comment above (which mirrors the Uniform Commercial Code General Comment 2).
Debtor's request to treat the claim as completely unsecured due to Debtor's future intent to return the collateral is premature as Debtor has not yet surrendered the property.
The court accepts the value of the collateral set forth in the declaration of Suleyman Ozrifaioglu.
The request for protective order and direction for filing of a redacted proof of claim as to bank account information is reasonable.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 69
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Overrule objection to allowance of BB&T's asserted secured claim (Claim 16-1) as premature
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor's request to treat the claim as completely unsecured due to Debtor's future intent to return the collateral is premature as Debtor has not yet surrendered the property.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 70
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Overrule objection to allowance of BB&T's asserted secured claim (Claim 17-1) as premature
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor's request to treat the claim as completely unsecured due to Debtor's future intent to return the collateral is premature as Debtor has not yet surrendered the property.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 72
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Overrule objection to allowance of BB&T's asserted secured claim (Claim 1-1) as premature
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor's request to treat the claim as completely unsecured due to Debtor's future intent to return the collateral is premature as Debtor has not yet surrendered the property.
Regarding Debtor's argument that the claimant has no secured claim because the debt is based on a lease which Debtor intends to reject, Debtor has not fully analyzed the status of the lease a "true lease" or a disguised security agreement.
If the Equipment Lease is determined to be a "true lease," then BB&T retains a reversionary ownership interest and is entitled to return of the collateral. In re J.A. Thompson & Son, Inc., 665 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir.
1982). The Court may order the trustee to determine within a specified period of time whether to assume or reject the lease. §365(d)(2).
Assumption assures the continuation in force of the contract or lease while rejection allows the Debtor’s estate to avoid it, limiting the non-bankrupt obligee to an unsecured claim for breach of contract. In re Pacific Express,
10:30 AM
Inc., 780 F.2d 1486 n.3 (9th Cir 1986). If the "Equipment Lease" is determined to be a "disguised security interest," then BB&T is entitled to a security interest in the collateral. In re J.A. Thompson & Son, Inc., 655 F.2d at 945. Any unperfected security interest is subject to avoidance under section 544(a)(1).
Paragraph 24 of the Equipment Lease provides that Pennsylvania law shall govern the lease. Ozrifaioglu Decl. Ex. A. Like UCC § 1-203, 13 pa.C.S.A. §1201(6) states that whether a transaction creates a lease or security interest is determined by the facts of each case. The statute then continues:
A transaction creates a security interest if the consideration the lessee is to pay the lessor for the right to possession and use of the goods is an obligation for the term of the lease not subject to termination by the lessee and:
the original term of the lease is equal to or greater than the remaining economic life of the goods;
the lessee is bound to renew the lease for the remaining economic life of the goods or is bound to become the owner of the goods;
the lessee has an option to renew the lease for the remaining economic life of the goods for no additional consideration or nominal additional consideration upon compliance with the lease agreement; or
the lessee has an option to become the owner of the goods for no additional consideration or nominal additional consideration upon compliance with the lease agreement.
Here, the Equipment Lease is a "non-cancelable lease" that "unconditionally leases" to Debtor the described equipment and "cannot be cancelled or terminated except as provided herein" with no additional terms provided. Ozrifaioglu Decl. Ex. A at ¶ 1. Additionally, Debtor has the purchase option to become the owner of the equipment for nominal
10:30 AM
consideration of "$1." Ozrifaioglu Decl. Ex. A at ¶ 18. These elements satisfy a finding, under Pennsylvania law, that the transaction creates a security interest.
Additional factors that support a finding that the Equipment Lease creates a security interest include that the economic substance of the transaction is that of an installment sale because the amount Debtor was to pay over the 36-month life of the lease would have amounted to over
$56,796, well above the $46,512 value of the collateral.1 See In re Pacific Express, Inc., 780 F.2d 1485 (concluding the economic substance of the transaction was that of an installment sale when the value of the equipment was stipulated to be $416,000 and Debtor was obligated to pay $9,250 a month for five years, which would have amounted to $555,000). Also, per the Equipment Lease, Debtor agreed to pay sales/use tax, insure the equipment in favor of the BB&T, and bare the risk of loss or damage to the equipment.
Id. at 1485–86 (concluding Debtor’s agreement to pay all sales, use and property taxes pertaining to the equipment, to insurance the equipment in favor of the lessor, and to bear the risk of loss or damage to the equipment supported a finding that the parties intended to create a security interest rather than a true lease). Lastly, per the Equipment Lease, in the event the lease is determined not to be a "true lease," the Debtor "grants" BB&T a security interest in the equipment.
Because the Equipment Lease appears to not be a true lease but rather a security agreement, BB&T would entitled to a security interest in the collateral rejection of the lease under Debtor’s Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization would appear to be inappropriate.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 83
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Continue hearing to April 11, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to file an amended disclosure statement (DS) by March 26, 2019; response to amended DS to be filed by April 2, 2019, 2019; reply by April 5, 2019.
Court's Comments re the DS:
DS, pg.11: Debtor needs to clearly disclose the identity of its current shareholders (owners). On the one hand, Debtor states that Vvon Inc. purchased all the shares of Debtor postpetiton. However, Debtor also states that it elected to become an S Corporation. Assuming 26 CFR 1.1361-1(a)(1) and 1.1361-1(f) applies to Debtor, a C corporation is ineligible to be a shareholder of an S corporation. Debtor needs to address this issue.
DS, pp. 22-24: The treatment of Classes 2F-2I should reflect the court's ruling re Debtor's objection to such claims. Also, regarding the treatment of Classes 2F-2I, what happens to equipment not picked up by the Effective Date or August 1, 2019?
DS, pg. 25 and Exh. 3: There is an inconsistency regarding the monthly payment to Class 4a. On page 25 of the DS, the monthly amount is stated as
$2,083/mo but mathematically the amount should be $2,149 ($128,940 x 60 mos) as indicated in the Plan.
10:30 AM
DS, pg. 28: Neither the DS or the Plan discloses the compensation to be paid to insider management postconfirmation. Specifically, Sec. 1129(a)(5)
(B) requires that a plan disclose "the identity of any insider that will be employed or retained by the reorganized debtor, and the nature of any compensation for such insider." (emphasis added).
DS, pp. 35-36: There is a typo at on p. 35 at line 23 -- the "0" should deleted from 1129(a)(8). On p. 36, line 2, there should be a cross-reference to the discussion of the Absolute Priority Rule in Section H at pp. 46-47 , and explaining that the New Value Exception Rule discussed in Section H provides a common law mechanism for satisfying the "fair and equitable" requirement of 1129(b)(2).
DS, pg. 47: The discussion at lines 6-16 seems to suggest that the Absolute Priority Rule does no apply to equity interest received postpetition. This analysis is inconsistent with 1129(b) which makes no distinction between prepetition acquired equity and postpetition acquired equity. Absent convincing legal authority supporting Debtor's position, the analysis is misleading and should be modified to disclose that Class 5 interest holders will be required to present evidence of "new value" at the time of the plan confirmation hearing if cram down becomes necessary.
DS, pg. 53: Re Exh.2, liquidation analysis, "costs" of liquidation are estimated at 7% ($2,358) of the value of the unencumbered asset
( $33,675). However, Debtor later adds another liquidation cost of $3,000 (auction costs). Why? If the liquidation costs does not include auction costs, what does it include?
Comments re Opposition to Approval of DS
Objection of Dogus Media: The plan is not patently unconfirmable. It could be determined to be unconfirmable IF an impaired class does not accept the plan, no impaired class accepts the plan and a junior class (Class 6) does not provide new value. This is an issue to be addressed at confirmation should cram down become necessary.
Objection of US Trustee: The court believes it has addressed this limited objection in its Comment 6 above.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 10-25-18; 3-7-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 25, 2018 [UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING]
Deadline to file plan/disclosure stmt: Jan. 17, 2019
Continued status conference: Feb. 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated status report due: Jan. 24, 2019 (this requirement is waived if Debtor
timely files plan/disclosure stmt)
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 19, 2019
No tentative ruling -- outcome will depend upon disposition of #22 on today's calendar (approval of disclosure statement).
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 24
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jose F. Lopez Represented By
Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
ap-01094 and 8:17-ap-01092 on the Grounds the Same Were Filed Base Upon Falsified Evidence, filed by Debtor John Jean Bral
(Set at SC held 9-20-18 ; See Statement/Doc. #603) FR: 1-10-19
Docket 219
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
[TA CASE]
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Terrii M Later Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
FR: 2-20-19, TA Cal
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kathleen Marie Buhneing Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
(con't from 2-20-19 TA Calendar)
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Arturo Murillo Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cuong Hung Pham Represented By Roman Quang Vu
Joint Debtor(s):
Yen Nga Nguyen Represented By Roman Quang Vu
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jorge Luis Oseguera Sr Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Vanneza Lopez Represented By Daniel King
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jeffrey Craig Cooper Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kimberly Suzanne Bouman Represented By Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Candice Onetha Butler Represented By Daniel King
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01188 Jones v. Haythorne
FR: 11-3-16; 4-13-17; 5-11-17; 6-15-17; 10-19-17; 12-14-17; 3-22-18; 3-29-18;
5-31-18; 7-19-18; 10-18-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 11/14/2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a Status Conference, Per Order Entered 3/1/2019 (XX) - td (3/1/2019)
November 3, 2016
Discovery Cut-off Date: 2/15/17
Pretrial Conference Date: 4/13/17 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: 3/30/17
Deadline for Plaintiff to file Brief With Legal Authority/Analysis re Asserted Right
to a Jury Trial 3/30/17
Special Note: Paragraph 14 of the Complaint refers to an alleged violation of "Section 828(a)(2) . . . of Title 11 of the United States Code." There is no Section 828 in the Bankruptcy Code.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
April 13, 2017
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 as to Plaintiff's and Defendant's counsel for failure to timely file a joint pretrial stipulation. The court further notes that Plaintiff did not file a brief in support of his alleged right to a jury trial and the court assumes Plaintiff is no longer demanding a jury trial.
Plaintiff's counsel filed a late unilateral pretrial statement on April 11, 2017 but does not include a declaration stating why a joint pretrial stipulation was not filed -- Defendant's counsel did not sign off on the statement filed on April 11, 2017. Instead the declaration appears to be an improper "motion" to re- open discovery. Such a request can only be made by a properly noticed motion pursuant to LBR 9013-1.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
May 11, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to June 15, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on pending motion to re-open discovery. (XX)
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
Though Section III (Issues of Law) refers to 523(a)(2)(A), Section II (Disputed Facts) of the JPS does not reference 523(a)(2)(A) or any disputed facts relevant to the elements of fraud.
Though Section refers to disputed facts relevant to 523(a)(6), Section III does not refer to issues of law re 523(a)(6).
The court does not understand the issue of law implicated by Section III(2) of the JPS.
Paragraph 9 of the Complaint refers to 523(a)(2)(B) but there is no
9:30 AM
reference to 523(a)(2)(B) in the JPS. Has this basis for nondischargeability been abandoned by Plaintiff?
Disputed facts relevant to the elements of slander per se are not set forth in the JPS.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required. Though an amended JPS is not required for the 6/15/17 hearing, the parties are advised to heed the court's comments re the JPS for purposes of any amended JPS filed in the future.
June 15, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to October 19, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; amended joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by October 5, 2017. (XX)
In preparing the joint pretrial stipulation, the parties should take in to consideration the court's comments above re the May 11, 2017 hearing.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
October 19, 2017
No tentative ruling as disposition will depend upon the outcome of the Motion to Compel set on today's 10:30 a.m. calendar. This matter will be trailed to the 10:30 a.m. calendar.
December 14, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to March 22, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; final version of
9:30 AM
pretrial stipulation must be filed by March 8, 2018. Deadline for filing pre-trial motions is January 18, 2018. February 22, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. shall be reserved for such motions. Pretrial motions not filed by January 18, 2018 will be deemed waived. (XX)
Comments re the Amended JPS filed 12/1/17:
Section II(2) should be modified to add "in a writing" after the phrase "misrepresented his financial condition."
All references to "Section 523(a)(b) shall be revised to correctly identify the statutes as 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(B).
Typos in Section II(16), line 11 ("filing") and Section III(2) ("Plaintiff") should be corrected.
The 12/1/17 version of the JPS does not include the list of witnesses and exhibits as represented therein.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 29, 2018
The separately filed pretrial stipulations are both deficient and do not address issues previously identified by the court. The parties will be allowed one final opportunity to file a proper joint pretrial statement and severe monetary sanctions of not less than $1000 will beimposed on the party who has not participated in the preparation of the final pretrial statement in good faith and in a timely manner.
If the parties cannot agree that a particular fact is undisputed, then it automatically goes into the disputed section of the statement -- one side cannot unilaterally decide that a disputed matter is undisputed.
The parties will be required to meet in person to work on the joint pretrial
9:30 AM
statement and should be thinking about a time/place to do so prior to today's hearing.
Comments re the Unilateral Pretrial Statements:
The sender and receiver of the wired funds of $232,557.66 should not be a disputed matter. For example, if wire documents indicate that Defendant was the sender, then Defendant should not be disputing that fact. If on the other hand, the sender of the wire was Gadzinski V in N Out Fund ("Gadzinski Fund"), then Plaintiff should include that fact as undisputed. Same the the identity of the recipient -- Plaintiff or Stellar Capital, Inc. ("Stellar")
The relationship between Defendant and Gadzinski Fund, if any, should be set forth as either a undisputed or disputed fact. Same re the relationship, if any, between Stellar and/or Plaintiff or Defendant.
The fact that a check in the amount of $5,000 was paid on November 17, 2014 appears to be undisputed. Is there a dispute that the check was drawn on the account of Salt Creek Realty, Inc? What is the relationship, if any, between Salt Creek and Defendant?
Re Plaintiff's Sections I(I) and (J), what is the relevance of the rental to the 523 and 727 claims? If it has no bearing on such claims, it should be deleted.
Re Plaintiff's Sections I(L) - (V) -- why are these facts relevant to the 523 and 727 claims? If they have no bearing on such claims, they should be deleted.
The parties to the alleged agreement and the terms thereof appear to be in dispute and should be listed in the joint pretrial statement as a facts in dispute.
Re whether Defendant misrepresented his financial condition, both parties have failed to include the necessary requirement under 523(a)(2)(B) that
9:30 AM
such misrepresentation be in writing. The court has previously pointed out this deficiency. If there is no writing, then the 523(a)(2)(B) claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
The reference in both pretrial statements to "523(a)(2)(A)(B)" is facially defective as no such statute exists. It is either 523(a)(2)(A) or 523(a)(2)(B).
No facts relating to 523(a)(2)(A) are set forth in either pretrial statement. If there are no such facts, this claim should be dismissed as a matter of law.
Certain elements of fraud are missing from the issues of fact/law, e.g., intent to deceive, damages as a result of reliance on misrepresentations.
What is the relevance of Plaintiff contacting Defendant's parents for repayment to either the 523 or 727 claims? If not relevant, it should be deleted.
Re Plaintiff's Section II(15) -- a time frame needs to be added that is consistent with the applicable 727 subsection. Same re Section II(16). Plaintiff appears have lumped several allegations together without any time frames that fall within the applicable 727 subsection.
Plaintiff's Exhibits: re "Wells Fargo Documents:" need to better identify the documents. Are they bank statements or something else? Re "letters" and "emails" -- need to identify sender/recipient re each, such as Defendant has done in his exhibit list.
Re Plaintiff's Witness List: Re witness #s 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 -- there is no indication of the time period. for example, David Williams will be testifying about a commission paid to Defendant when? "When" makes a difference of purposes of whether the transaction should have been listed on Defendant's schedules or statement of financial affairs.
Special Note: Over the course of this adversary, this court has spend hours correcting issues on what should have been a straightforward joint pretrial statement. The court is concerned that the parties are not being thoughtful in the preparation of the pretrial statement. For example the court cannot even
9:30 AM
determine whether there are any facts to be litigated under 523(a)(2)(A) or 523(a)(2)(B) based on what currently appears in Plaintiff's pretrial statement.
Note: Appearances at this pretrial conference are MANDATORY.
July 19, 2018
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of other motions on for hearing this date.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Jones Represented By Richard A Jones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 2-2-17; 8-3-17; 11-9-17, 3-8-18; 6-14-18; 10-18-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Default Judgment Entered 12/192018 - td (12/19/2018)
February 2, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: Jun. 30, 2017
Pretrial Conference Date: Aug. 3, 2017 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Jul. 20, 2017
Special Note: Although the court is not requiring the parties to attend mediation, the court encourages the parties to consider mediation as an opportunity to reach resolution of this matter.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01042 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
FR: 5-17-18; 11-15-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 5/9/2019 at 9:30 a.m.,
Per Order Approving Fourth Stipulation Entered on 2/26/2019 (XX) - liz (2/26/2019)
May 17, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Sept. 20, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: n/a
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 15, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Nov. 1, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at
9:30 AM
today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
November 15, 2018
Continue pre-trial conference to January 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by January 10, 2019.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Mark Ziebold Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se Nationwide Life Insurance Company Pro Se Nationwide Life and Annuity Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By
9:30 AM
Reem J Bello
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 7-27-17; 9-21-17, 4-12-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Approving Woodlawn Colonial, L.P.'s Motion to Stay Adversary Proceeding Until Completion of Appellate Review of the Bankruptcy Court Order Approving Sale of Rights to State Court Appeal Entered 1/24/18 - td (1/24/2018)
July 27, 2017
No tentative ruling -- the disposition of the status conference will depend upon the outcome of Plaintiff's motion for stay of the adversary proceeding, which set on today's 10:30am calendar.
September 21, 2017
Impose sanctions against counsel for Plaintiff in the amount of $100 for failure to file joint status report as required by LBR 7016-1.
Discovery Cut-off Date: Jan. 18, 2018
Deadline to File Pretrial Motions: Feb. 1, 2018
Reserved hearing date re Pretrial Motions: Mar. 8, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (xx) Pretrial Conference: Apr. 12, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Pretrial Stipulation Mar. 29, 2018
9:30 AM
Special Note: Defendant's counterclaim may be moot in light of the sale of the truck by the Trustee.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
July 19, 2018
In light of pending appeal, continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., updated status report must be filed by September 13, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 29, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
March 21, 2019
Continue status conference to May 9, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as
9:30 AM
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; updated status report not required.
Note: Appearances at the March 21, 2019 status conference are not required.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01071 Bral v. Beitler
FR: 9-20-18
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By
9:30 AM
Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
Barry Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01071 Bral v. Beitler
FR: 9-20-18
Docket 20
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
9:30 AM
William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
Barry Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01092 Beitler v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Barry Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01094 Beitler & Associates, Inc. dba Beitler Commercial v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Beitler & Associates, Inc. dba Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01095 Steward Financial LLC v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. Deadline for Defendant to file responsive pleading to the FAC: June 20, 2019.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel
9:30 AM
Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Steward Financial LLC Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01143 Marshack v. Nguyen
FR: 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 1-24-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 11, 2018
Continue pretrial conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; joint pretriial stipulation due on November 29, 2018.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
December 6, 2018
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by January 10, 2019, (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
Continue Status Conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status
9:30 AM
report must be filed by March 7, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
AA-TEK Machining, Inc. Represented By Tina H Trinh
Defendant(s):
Natalie Nguyen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Kelly Zinser
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery Kelly Zinser
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01071 Albert-Sheridan v. Education Credit Management Corporation et al
FR: 7-10-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
July 10, 2018 | |
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 10/15/18 |
Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: | 11/16/18 |
Pretrial Conference Date: | 12/20/18 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) |
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: | 11/13/18 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
March 21, 2019
This matter will be trailed to today's 10:30 a.m. calendar.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Education Credit Management Represented By Scott A Schiff
The Education Resources Institute Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01087 Albert-Sheridan v. Norman
FR: 9-6-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice filed 3/18/2019; No Answer Filed - td (3/18/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Dismiss adversary proceeding sua sponte in light of this court's ruling on December 13, 2018 granting the chapter 7 trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit to Plaintiff/Debtor. Dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a lawsuit and/or seeking other relief in state court or other non-bankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Upon conversion of the underlying case from a chapter 13 to a chapter 7, the
9:30 AM
chapter 7 trustee had exclusive standing and control re the prosecution of this adversary proceeding. On December 13, 2018, the court granted the trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit back to Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
554. As a consequence of abandonment, the lawsuit is no longer property of the bankruptcy estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 541 and now belongs to Debtor. As the lawsuit is no longer property of the estate and involves no claims for relief implicating bankruptcy law, the prosecution of the same will have no impact on the trustee's administration of the underlying bankruptcy case and this court no longer has subject matter jurisdication to adjudicate the alleged claims.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
Take matter off-calendar in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice. Appearance at the status conference is not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Jason Norman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01088 Albert-Sheridan v. Pasillas et al
FR: 9-6-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice filed 3/18/2019; No Answer Filed - td (3/18/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Dismiss adversary proceeding sua sponte in light of this court's ruling on December 13, 2018 granting the chapter 7 trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit to Plaintiff/Debtor. Dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a lawsuit and/or seeking other relief in state court or other non-bankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Upon conversion of the underlying case from a chapter 13 to a chapter 7, the
9:30 AM
chapter 7 trustee had exclusive standing and control re the prosecution of this adversary proceeding. On December 13, 2018, the court granted the trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit back to Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
554. As a consequence of abandonment, the lawsuit is no longer property of the bankruptcy estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 541 and now belongs to Debtor. As the lawsuit is no longer property of the estate and involves no claims for relief implicating bankruptcy law, the prosecution of the same will have no impact on the trustee's administration of the underlying bankruptcy case and this court no longer has subject matter jurisdication to adjudicate the alleged claims.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
Take matter off-calendar in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice. Appearance at the status conference is not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Amelia Pasillas Pro Se
Lorenso Pasillas Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore Luann Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
9:30 AM
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01089 Albert-Sheridan v. Lester
FR: 9-6-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice filed 3/18/2019; No Answer Filed - td (3/18/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Dismiss adversary proceeding sua sponte in light of this court's ruling on December 13, 2018 granting the chapter 7 trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit to Plaintiff/Debtor. Dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a lawsuit and/or seeking other relief in state court or other non-bankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Upon conversion of the underlying case from a chapter 13 to a chapter 7, the
9:30 AM
chapter 7 trustee had exclusive standing and control re the prosecution of this adversary proceeding. On December 13, 2018, the court granted the trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit back to Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
554. As a consequence of abandonment, the lawsuit is no longer property of the bankruptcy estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 541 and now belongs to Debtor. As the lawsuit is no longer property of the estate and involves no claims for relief implicating bankruptcy law, the prosecution of the same will have no impact on the trustee's administration of the underlying bankruptcy case and this court no longer has subject matter jurisdication to adjudicate the alleged claims.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
Take matter off-calendar in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice. Appearance at the status conference is not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Mark Lester Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01090 Albert-Sheridan v. Ballard et al
FR: 9-6-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice filed 3/18/2019; No Answer Filed - td (3/18/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Dismiss adversary proceeding sua sponte in light of this court's ruling on December 13, 2018 granting the chapter 7 trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit to Plaintiff/Debtor. Dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing a lawsuit and/or seeking other relief in state court or other non-bankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Upon conversion of the underlying case from a chapter 13 to a chapter 7, the
9:30 AM
chapter 7 trustee had exclusive standing and control re the prosecution of this adversary proceeding. On December 13, 2018, the court granted the trustee's motion to abandon this lawsuit back to Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
554. As a consequence of abandonment, the lawsuit is no longer property of the bankruptcy estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 541 and now belongs to Debtor. As the lawsuit is no longer property of the estate and involves no claims for relief implicating bankruptcy law, the prosecution of the same will have no impact on the trustee's administration of the underlying bankruptcy case and this court no longer has subject matter jurisdication to adjudicate the alleged claims.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
Take matter off-calendar in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice. Appearance at the status conference is not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Steven Ballard Pro Se
Catherine Olsen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore Luann Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01123 Marshack (TR) v. Patow
U.S.C. Section 727(A)(4)and (A)(2) FR: 9-20-18; 11-15-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 15, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 15, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Mar. 21, 2019 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Mar. 14, 2019
Special Note: Defendant indicates he does not consent to this court entering a final judgment. However, as this matter involves core bankruptcy issues, i.e., right to bankruptcy discharge, and there is no right to a jury trial, this court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment. Stated otherwise, the consent of the parties is not required for this court to enter a final judgment/order in this adversary proceeding concerning Plaintiff's objection to Defendant's discharge.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
James Christopher Patow Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Defendant(s):
James Christopher Patow Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01177 Potter et al v. Quaid
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
John Timothy Quaid Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Defendant(s):
John Timothy Quaid Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Simon Potter Represented By
Daniel A Higson
Titi A Potter Represented By
Daniel A Higson
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01177 Potter et al v. Quaid
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 6, 2018
Continue Status Conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 unless a motion for default judgment has been granted or is pending as of such date. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
March 21, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of granting of Plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
John Timothy Quaid Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Defendant(s):
John Timothy Quaid Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Simon Potter Represented By
Daniel A Higson
Titi A Potter Represented By
Daniel A Higson
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 21
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Movant has failed to establish that its interest is not adequately protected by an 18.5% equity cushion. Movant cites to two cases for the proposition that adequate protection = a 20% equity cushion and that anything less than 20% is inadequate. The two cases are In re Mellor, 734 F.2d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1984) and In re Helionetics, 70 B.R. 433, 440 (Bankr.C.D.Cal. 1987). In fact, neither case states or supports such a rule. It just so happens that in each case, the creditor was protected by a 20% cushion. In Mellor, in finding that the 20% equity cushion in that case was adequate, the 9th Circuit actually cited and relied on multiple cases in which adequate protection was found where there was less than a 20% equity cushion -- as low as 10%, to wit:
In the matter before us, the value of the sellers' lien on the Upland residence is
$17,960.06. This includes the amount still owed to Pistole pursuant to the original land sale contract, and $12,460.06 paid to Weyerhauser to stop the foreclosure proceedings. The
10:00 AM
bankruptcy court found that the value of the residence is $105,000; thus, there is an “equity cushion” to protect the sellers' interest in the amount of $20,340 or approximately 20% of the total value. A 20% cushion has been held to be an adequate protection for a secured creditor. See In re McGowan, 6 B.R. 241, 243 (B.Ct.E.D.Pa.1980) [holding a 10% cushion is sufficient to be adequate protection]; In re Rogers Development Corp., 2 B.R. 679, 685 (B.Ct.E.D.Virg.1980) [court decided that an equity cushion of approximately 15% to 20% was sufficient adequate protection to the creditor, even though the debtors had no equity in the property.]; In re Breuer, 4 B.R. 499, 501 [creditor protected by equity cushion of $21,000 despite fact that debtor lacked equity in the property.]
734 F.2d at 1401.
In addition, the chapter 7 trustee has filed a no asset report and there are no motions pending other than this one. Accordingly, it is highly likely this case will be closed within the next 30-60 days, thereby terminating the automatic stay as a matter of law. 11 U.S.C. 362(c); 11 U.S.C. 554(c).
Debtor(s):
Farhang Modirzadeh Zarrinkelk Represented By Jerome S Demaree
Joint Debtor(s):
Azarin Abbassi Sadegh Represented By Jerome S Demaree
Movant(s):
Home Point Financial Corporation, Represented By
Nichole Glowin
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay filed 3/11/2019 - td (3/11/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dean Gaddi Represented By
Amanda G Billyard
Movant(s):
Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. hrg. held 5/22/14)
FR: 11-20-14; 3-5-15; 9-10-15; 3-10-16; 9-8-16; 3-16-17; 9-21-17; 3-22-18;
3-29-18; 10-11-18; 12-6-18
Docket 209
NONE LISTED -
November 20, 2014
Continue status conference to March 5, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.,; updated status report to be filed by Feb 19, 2015. (XX)
Special note: The court would ordinarily continue the hearing 180 days. However, because of Debtor's failure to timely commence plan payments as to certain classes, the continued hearing will be heard sooner this time.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtors' responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 5, 2015
Continue status conference to September 10, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by August 27, 2015. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 10, 2015
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 10, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by February 25, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
March 10, 2016
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 8, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 28, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 8, 2016
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 2, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
March 16, 2017 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 31, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
September 21, 2017
Comments:
The report re Class 6 appears to be a cut and paste from the Sixth Postconfirmation Status Report -- has Debtor made quarterly distributions in 2017?
Does Debtor intend to seek a final decree prior to 2024, notwithstanding that plan payments will continue until 2024?
March 29, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to October 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by September 27, 2018 (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US
10:30 AM
Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
October 11, 2018
Updated postconfirmation status report not timely filed. Impose sanctions against Debtor's counsel in the amount of $100.00 for failure to timely file an updated status report.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed no later than March 7, 2019 and should specifically address 1) Debtor's employment status, and 2) the status of plan arrearages as to Class 2(c). (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements
March 21, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; An updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 and such report shall address the following: 1) the amount of arrears for each class that is not current as of May 1, 2019, and 2) the status of her employment.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of
10:30 AM
the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
Debtor(s):
Alma Theresa Tejadilla Reyes Represented By
Ivan M Lopez Ventura Jeffrey V Hernandez
10:30 AM
Docket 152
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Grant the motion. Any claim for overpayment the estate may have shall be deemed abandoned to Debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 554.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Leslie Noel Twomey Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Represented By
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR)
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 128
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kenneth Church Represented By Shawn Dickerson
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda K Church Represented By Shawn Dickerson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Michael G Spector
10:30 AM
[THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. SPECTOR, ATTORNEYS FOR RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE.]
Docket 124
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kenneth Church Represented By Shawn Dickerson
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda K Church Represented By Shawn Dickerson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Michael G Spector
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY LLP, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 125
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kenneth Church Represented By Shawn Dickerson
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda K Church Represented By Shawn Dickerson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 1-24-19
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
January 24, 2019
Grant motion, less $2,614 in attorneys fees and costs as requested and less any amount of fees previously paid by defendant, if any.
The reduction in attorneys fees reflects reductions previously ordered by this court re the September 21, 2017 hearing (see tentative ruling).
March 21, 2019
Grant award of attorneys fees in the amount of $103,342.48 and costs in the amount of $2,933.84 for total fees and costs in the amount of $106,276.32.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiff has satisfactorily explained the redacted (uncharged) items. No further deduction for the redacted matters.
Regarding the disputed unredacted matters, the court will reduce the award by half the amount disputed by Defendant, or $4,756.52, so as to
10:30 AM
finally resolve this matter. Thus, $108,099 - $4,756.52 = 103,342.48.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[THOMAS H. CASEY, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 200
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
[THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. CASEY, INC., ATTORNEY FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 193
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 190
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
Docket 37
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Tausha N. Mitcham Represented By Allan Calomino
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01071 Albert-Sheridan v. Education Credit Management Corporation et al
(Status Conference re status of compliance)
FR: 12-20-18
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
December 20, 2018
Grant motion to compel. Set status conference re status of compliance for March 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall file a statement re status of compliance by March 5, 2019 andDefendant may file a response by March 12, 2019. The imposition of the requested sanctions will only be granted if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to all interrogatories/request for production of documents by or before February 15, 2019. Any bank and/or credit statements, tax returns and other financial data may only be used by Defendant for the purpose of defending itself in this adversary proceeding and such information may only be shared with employees providing assistance in such defense.
10:30 AM
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The court has read the discovery requests and finds that they are all relevant to Defendant's defense to the complaint and are not vague, ambiguous or unduly burdensome.
As this matter involves Plaintiff's discharge of student loan debt, neither the Trustee or the bankruptcy estate has any interest in the same. In fact, the court specifically excluded this adversary proceeding from the trustee's abandonment motion at the December 13, 2018 hearing.
It is because the trustee did erroneously include this adversary in its list of adversaries to be abandoned that the court is allowing Plaintiff a period of time to respond to the discovery requests without sanction. However, if she refuses to respond to the requests fully and in good faith, monetary sanctions will be imposed.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
The parties are ordered to meet and confer outside the courtroom prior to the hearing to determine the scope of any remaining discovery issues. The matter will be placed at the end of the 10:30am calendar.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Education Credit Management Represented By Scott A Schiff
The Education Resources Institute Pro Se
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
Case; and (2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 9-6-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues which are not addressed in the status report:
Cash Collateral: Debtor has rental income but there is no mention of seeking authorization to use cash collateral or a cash collateral stipulation.
State Court Litigation: More information regarding the nature and procedural posture of the state court action is required. What was going on in the litigation that caused this case to be filed? How will this litigation be dealt with in the bankruptcy case?
Plan/Disclosure Statement: This case appears to be relatively straightforward but the timing of filing a plan and disclosure statement is not discussed in the status report.
Tentative Schedule:
Claims Bar Date: Nov. 19, 2018 (notice by Sept. 17, 2018)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: Nov. 29, 2018
Con't Status Conf: Dec. 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Updated Status Report Due: Dec. 6, 2018 (waived if plan/DS timely
10:30 AM
filed)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 20, 2018
Impose sanctions in the amount against Debtor's for 1) failure to file a plan and disclosure statement and failure to timely file a status report in accordance with the court's September 6, 2018 order. No explanation is offered as why the plan and disclosure statement were not filed by November 29, 2018. No attempt was made to seek an extension of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement. Apparently, counsel views the dates set forth in such order as a mere suggestion which can otherwise be ignored.
The court will issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely file a plan and disclosure statement and to comply with orders of the court.
Note: Apppearance at this hearing is required.
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of related matter on today's calendar.
March 21, 2019
Continue chapter 11 status conference to April 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of disclosure statement. Updated status report not required.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is
10:30 AM
Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Grant motion in its entirety.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jane Kim Represented By
Andrew K Kim
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 22
OFF CALENDAR: Per Order Entered 2/21/2019 - td (3/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joseph John Munoz Represented By Louis J Esbin
Joint Debtor(s):
Maria Munoz Represented By Louis J Esbin
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 14
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Case filed 3/12/2019 - td (3/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Doo M Ko Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 727(a)(8)
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Karen Pinto Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01123 Marshack (TR) v. Patow
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
March 21, 2019
Grant motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) unless, Defendant files by April 15, 2019 an answer that complies with FRCP 8(b)(1)
and/or 8(b)(1)(B) as applicable. If such an answer is not timely filed, the motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be deemed granted.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
After the pleadings are closed, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. FRCP 12(c) as adopted by FRBP 7012(b). A motion under FRCP 12(c) challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings, similar to that of a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. In deciding a FRCP 12(c) motion, the court applies the same standards applicable to a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. Cafasso, U.S. ex. rel. v General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054, n. 4 (9th Cir. 2011).
"Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law...
However, judgment on the pleadings is improper when the district court goes beyond the pleadings to resolve an issue; such a proceeding must properly be treated as a motion for summary judgment." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v.
2:00 PM
Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). "On a 12(c) motion, the court considers ‘the complaint, the answer, any written documents attached to them, and any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case.’ " L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir. 2011).
As with FRCP 12(b)(6) motions, the court must assume the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading being challenged and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts are construed in favor of the responding party. Fleming v. Picard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 is made applicable to this adversary by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008. FRCP 8(b)(1)(A) requires that when responding to a pleading such as a complaint, a party must "state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted in it." Further, FRCP 8(b)(1)(B) requires that a party responding to a complaint must "admit or deny the allegations asserted against it" by the opposing party (plaintiff).
In this matter, the facts alleged in the Complaint state "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." In re Atlantic Corp v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). Per the Complaint, Debtor holds a vested beneficial interest in his parents trust and an indirect ownership interest in the very property that Debtor lives in- facts Debtor failed to disclose on his bankruptcy schedules signed under penalty of perjury. See, Compl., p. 2-4, ¶¶8-10 and 12-26. Based on these deemed admitted facts, Plaintiff’s claims for relief under § 727(a)(2)[(false oaths] and (a)(4)[actions to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors] are plausible given Debtor’s failure to make full disclosures on his bankruptcy schedules (filed after the petition date) thereby concealing estate assets.
The single paragraph response filed by Defendant, a pro se party, on October 26, 2018 [docket #14] does not admit or deny any of the well-pled allegations set forth in the Complaint. The only substantative portion of the response states simply that Defendant does "not agree with Marshack's [plaintiff's] opinion of this case and [Defendant] would like to have a different
2:00 PM
person to see this case such as a judge." Defendant's "Quick Response to Adversary Proceeding" at p. 2. Defendant's response conveys an apparent complete lack of understanding of a proper response to a complaint. The response is so woefully deficient that it cannot be deemed answer to the Complaint, even under the most liberal standards. Simply put, the response does not address any of the allegations in the Complaint, let alone admit or deny them.
As noted by Plaintiff in the Motion, pleadings by pro se litigants must be liberally construed and this court has a "duty to ensure that pro se litigants to not lose their right to a hearing on the merits of their claim [or defense] due to the ignorance of technical procedural requirements." Nordeen v. Bank of America, NA (In re Nordeen) 495 B.R. 476-477 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). Under FRCP 7015 (a)(2), the court is required to grant leave to amend a pleading such as an answer "when justice so requires." This rule is to be construed liberally.Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997).
Based on all of the foregoing, the court is compelled to permit Defendant one final opportunity to file an response to the Complaint that applies with the applicable pleading rules noted above.
Additional note: The court finds that Plaintiff has also established grounds for striking the response under FRCP 12(f) for the reasons and analysis set forth in the Motion, which the court incorporates herein by reference.
Debtor(s):
James Christopher Patow Represented By Kevin J Kunde
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
James Christopher Patow Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
March 26, 2019
The court is inclined to grant the motion. However, Debtor will need to address the following:
The Motion asks that this court approve the "Interim Order Fulfillment Agreement" ("Fulfillment Agreement") between Debtor and SUMMIT on the one hand, and on the other hand requests that the court set a hearing on Debtor's proposed sale motion. However, as far as the court can tell, there is no separate Fulfillment Agreement for this court to approve. Instead, there is a provision in the Purchase Agreement, Article 10, entitled "Fulfillment Agreemnt." Is Debtor asking the court to approve a single provision of an otherwise unapproved Purchase Agreement? Or is there a separate document memorializing the Fulfillment Agreement that is not attached to the Motion?
Will SUMMIT continue to process and fulfill orders after the sale hearing but before closing if it is not the successful bidder?
Final hearing date: May 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gregory Bettison Represented By Anthony P Cara
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kevin S. Yoneda Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ryan Phillip Jones Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandy Gee Yung Kim Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Henshaw Represented By Kevin Tang
Joint Debtor(s):
Holley Henshaw Represented By Kevin Tang
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Viet Duc Bui Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 30
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bertha Zapata Represented By Gary Polston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Abel Yepes Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kristy Lorraine Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Joint Debtor(s):
Mark S Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 3
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion to Chapter 7 filed 1/8/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (3/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Albert Akio Sakai Represented By Anerio V Altman
Joint Debtor(s):
Debra Lynn Sakai Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jeffrey J. Axton Represented By Bruce D White
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard Thomas McPhee Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Pejman Pirmoradi Represented By Alon Darvish
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 2/5/2019 - td (3/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Emil Peter Joros Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 23
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mary Guenther Represented By Timothy McFarlin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 12/31/2018 - td (3/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Can Lam Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard Price Alexander Represented By Peter Holzer
Joint Debtor(s):
Donna Jean Alexander Represented By Peter Holzer
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 1/8/2019 - td (3/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
James Ray Peterson Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mark Deleon Mendoza Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Joint Debtor(s):
Cynthia Marie Mendoza Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 12/26/2018 - td (1/11/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Heriberto Moreno Represented By Lionel E Giron
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 5
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daisy Valadez Represented By Tom A Moore
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Donna Lee Lawler Represented By Peter Rasla
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jennifer Mary Turunen Johnson Represented By Heather J Canning
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 12/17/2018 - td (3/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
David Winslow Knaak Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Christopher J. Ozuna Represented By Christian T Spaulding
Joint Debtor(s):
Leisa S. Ozuna Represented By Christian T Spaulding
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 12/17/2018; Case Closed 2/20/2019 - td (3/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Laura Jarrett Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michelle Mejia Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kayleen R Hittesdorf Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Scott T. Vu Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Thu M. Nguyen Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 11/26/2018; Case Closed 1/1/2019 - td (3/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Quynh Thuy Lu Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 33
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William Raymond Harvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Joint Debtor(s):
Akram Naieharvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael P Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Joint Debtor(s):
Deborah J. Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
J. Guadalupe Zepeda Dimas Represented By James F Drake
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric Michael Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Joint Debtor(s):
Celena Renee Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jose F. Lopez Represented By
Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nicole H. Hazlett Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jay R. Bauer Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 1-22-19
Docket 67
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gerardo Caravez Represented By Michael D Franco
Joint Debtor(s):
Rafaela Caravez Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jorge D. Muniz Represented By Christine A Kingston
Joint Debtor(s):
Aida A. Muniz Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 33
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Hildegard Katharina Brandt Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 86
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 3/19/19- mp 3/19/19
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Troy Bernard Jemerson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 60
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rogelio B. Escobido Jr. Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 69
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thomas John Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Kristina Renee Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 51
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 1-22-19
Docket 48
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 53
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 3/18/2019 - td (3/18/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Christopher Michael Brooksbank Represented By
Karine Karadjian
Joint Debtor(s):
Suzanne Michelle Brooksbank Represented By Karine Karadjian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 54
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daryl John Parks Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 54
SPECIAL NOTE: Debtors' Notice of Withdrawal of Opposition to Trustee's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing filed 3/20/2019 - td (3/21/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William Waller Represented By Andrew Moher
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Waller Represented By Andrew Moher
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 1-22-19
Docket 82
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Anthony Telesio Represented By Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 76
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Scott Langdon Campos Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 91
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case Entered 1/25/19- mp 3/19/19
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thomas Charles Dailey Jr Represented By Halli B Heston Ronald Appel Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 59
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gary Snavely Represented By
Thomas B Ure
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 90
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Martin Naranjo Represented By Heather J Canning Barry E Borowitz
Joint Debtor(s):
Christina Naranjo Represented By Heather J Canning Barry E Borowitz
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 1-22-19
Docket 102
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bert Ranelycke-Svensson Represented By Scott Dicus
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 49
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 1/28/2019 - td (1/29/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Pedro Hernandez Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 110
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Catherina D. Salazar Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rocio Lopez Namdar Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 84
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nguyen D. Uong Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 45
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Chad G Spates Represented By James D Zhou
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 153
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jimmy DeAnda Represented By Michael E Hickey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 141
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 12-21-18; 1-22-19
Docket 96
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 3/12/2019 - td (3/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jill Marie Lungren Represented By William P White Bruce D White
Joint Debtor(s):
Carlos Alfonso Lungren Represented By William P White
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 60
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Judith Diane Buffington Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 10-23-18; 1-22-19
Docket 51
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Brian Lee Head Represented By Alaa A Yasin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 55
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal filed 2/14/2019 - td (2/19/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John M. Fanelli Represented By Tate C Casey
Joint Debtor(s):
Tracy A. Fanelli Represented By Tate C Casey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(Set at SC held 9-20-18)
FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19
Docket 544
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 4/30/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 3/21/2019 (XX) - td (3/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
FR: 9-20-18 (Per Order Entered 10/16/18) FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19
Docket 558
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 4/30/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 3/21/2019 (XX) - td (3/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01114 Albert-Sheridan v. Tessler et al
(Another Summons Issued 2/19/19)
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Plaintiff will need to explain the purpose of the adversary.
Defendants are correct that, absent the commencement of a timely adversary action filed by a creditor pursuant to Section 523(a), the general rule is that unsecured debt is is dischargeable.
The debt in this case does not appear to be a tax or student loan debt which would require affirmative action by a debtor to have such a debt declared nondischargeable.
If there are assets for the trustee to distribute, the defendants will be paid pro rata with other timely filed unsecured claims and the balance, if any would be discharged.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
9:30 AM
Irwin Tessler Pro Se
Michael Tessler Pro Se
ViewCrest Road Properties, LLC Pro Se
Art Carvalho Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service showing timely and proper service the summons and complaint on Defendant US Department of Education in accordance with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(b)(4).
Continue status conference to May 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The court will issue and order to show cause why this adversary proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute -- a hearing on the order to show cause shall also be held on May 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
If Plaintiff has not properly served Defendant as of the date of the hearing , she must obtain another summons from the Clerk's Office and serve the same by or before April 18, 2019.
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01033 Egozi et al v. American Alternative Investments LLC et al
2018-037829-CA-01)
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal filed 3/15/2019; Order Approving Withdrawal of Notice of Removal Entered 4/2/2019 - td (4/2/2019)
April 4, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of filing of notice of withdrawal of removed action.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Future Income Payment LLC Pro Se
Defendant(s):
American Alternative Investments Pro Se Partners South Estate Planning Inc Pro Se Allied Strategic Partnership LLC Pro Se
Rob D Whitlow Pro Se
Timothy R Fussell Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Sarah Egozi Pro Se
Leon Egoz Pro Se
Leon Egozi Pro Se
Susan Egozi Pro Se
Daniel Bajuk Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, as servicer for THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ET AL
VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 7-19-18; 9-6-18; 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 2-12-19
Docket 98
NONE LISTED -
July 19, 2018
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Debtor's response is muddled and equivocal -- she doesn't state definitively whether she has made all postpetition payments or, if not, how many are missing. Merely attaching miscellaneous copies of checks (presumably for the court to try to decipher) is insufficient.
September 6, 2018
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
October 11, 2018
10:00 AM
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
February 12, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter. If more time is need to reach resolution, the hearing may be continued one final time to April 1, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. requesting the same during the calendar roll call just prior to the hearing.
April 4, 2019
Deny motion without prejudice due to failure to prosecute. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This hearing has been pending for nearly nine months.
No new pleadings have been filed sice the February 12, 2019 hearing.
This court indicated in its tentative ruling for the 2/12/19 hearing that no further continuances would be granted.
Debtor(s):
Rosa M Harding Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Movant(s):
THE BANK OF NEW YORK Represented By Gilbert R Yabes
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; AND AMRANE COHEN, CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Grace A Craft Represented By
Charles W Daff
Movant(s):
MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Continue hearing to May 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to file complete declaration in support of the Motion by or before April 18, 2019.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The Motion is missing pages 8-11 of Form 4001.1.RFS.RP.Motion, including testimony regarding the number missed postpetition/postconfirmation payments, authentication of Exhibit 3, and the declaration signature page.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Mario P. Guerrero Represented By Gary S Saunders
10:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Niza B. Guerrero Represented By Gary S Saunders
Movant(s):
Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 49
CONTINUED: Stipulation Re Continuance of Hearing filed 4/1/2019; Order Approving Stipulation Re Continuance of Hearing on Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay SIGNED 4/2/19; hearing continued to 6/20/19 at 10:00 a.m. (XX) --eas / td (4/2/2019)
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Angie M Marth Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The sole basis for the motion is that Movant's interest is not adequately protected and, therefore, relief from stay should be granted for cause under Section 362(d)(1).
By Movant's own admission, it is protected by a 74% equity cushion based upon Movant's appraiser's value of $750,000.
Movant's interest is adequately protected by the 74% equity cushion. Accordingly, Movant states no basis for relief from stay under 362(d)(1).
Movant did not seek relief under Section 362(d)(2) (lack of equity and property not necessary for reorganization). Even if it had, it would have had the burden of proof re equity. In analyzing the amount of equity Debtor has, Movant used a judgment lien debt in the amount of approximately $161,000.
10:00 AM
It is not clear how Movant determined the existence of this "lien" in light of the fact that the the purported holder of such lien, SJO Investments, filed an unsecured claim in Debtor's prior chapter 13 case (#18-11236) and does not assert a security interest in the dischargeability complaint it filed in this case.
The trustee has filed a no-asset report and this case will likely be closed in the near future, resulting in the expiration of the automatic stay.
Debtor filed a late opposition on April 2, 2019 which has not been considered by the court due to lack of timeliness. However, even without considering Debtor's opposition, Movant is not entitled to relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1) for the reasons noted above.
Debtor(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Represented By
Andrew Edward Smyth
Movant(s):
Americana Trust Deed Services Represented By Paul V Reza
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stacey White Kinney Represented By Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
RENEE HUDBURGH VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 32
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Court's Comments Pleadings
The court is normally inclined to allow the state court to decide family law matters. However, the circumstances of this matter give this court pause. The parties will need to structure their arguments to address the concerns of the court set forth below.
Movant asserts in the Motion that a child support order was registered in state court on October 21, 2016 in the amount of $68,283.60. However, a copy of the registered document was not filed with the Motion. LBR 4001-1(c)
and 9013-1(d) require that all supporting documents be filed with the Motion.
Movant references a Stipulation and Order executed by the parties on or about February 1, 2017 but does not attach a copy of the same to the Motion. According to Movant, Debtor was to make monthly payments of $200 until he retired, at which time he would request a lump sum distribution from his
10:00 AM
pension and pay the sum of approximately $70,000.
The Stipulation and Order was attached to the Opposition filed by Debtor. The document does not, on its face, appear to support Movant's interpretation of the same. For example, the document states the following:
"Respondent has an arrearage of $22,600.00 and interest from 11/1/2016." (emphasis added)
"When Respondent retires in June 2018, he shall elect the lump sum retirement from the Employee's Pension Plan . . . and shall pay the balance due on said arrearage plus interest from 10/21/16 in a lump sum." (emphasis added)
The Stipulation and Order does only references an arrearage of
$22,600.00 and makes no reference to $68,000+ referenced in the 2016 registered support document. Why not? The requirement to pay the lump sum upon retirement refers to "said" arrearage, i.e., the arrearage mentioned previously in the Stipulation and Order. The court is perplexed that the Stipulation and Order can be interepreted any other way and is not at all surprised pension administrator doesn't share Movant's view of the Stipulation and Order.
As for Debtor, he appears to want to hold Movant to the terms of the Stipulation and Order regarding the amount, but does not want to uphold his part of the agreement to pay the $22,600.00 (less monthly payments made pre-retirement) in a lump sum -- opting instead to stretch out the payments over 60 months without interest. Why? And why is Debtor so afraid that the state court would have a different interpretation of the Stipulation and Order? Stated otherwise, is it Debtor's strategy to have this court use its "great equitable powers" do something he knows the state court would never do?
Debtor(s):
Gilbert D Garcia Represented By Dale F Hardeman
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Renee Hudiburgh Represented By Alexander J Kessler
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Movant moves for relief under Section 362(d)(1) on the grounds that its interests are not adequately protected but provides no evidence of such lack of adequate protection. Movant does not even provide any evidence of the subject property's value.
Movant asserts that the case was filed in bad faith because it was filed to stop a foreclosure. 99% of bankruptcy cases are filed to stop a foreclosure -- the halting of a foreclosure sale without more is not per se bad faith.
Movant asserts the case was filed in bad faith because schedules were not filed. However, the case was filed on March 1, 2019 -- schedules would not become delinquent until after the 15th day following the filing or March 16. In fact, the schedules were timely filed on March 15.
10:00 AM
Movant asserts that its interests are not adequately protected because of lack of proof of insurance. Debtor has provided some evidence insurance in her Opposition.
Movant seeks extraordinary relief under Section 362(d)(4) but states no factual basis for the same.
Debtor has offered a proposal to become current -- Movant might want to consider it.
Debtor(s):
Heather Leigh Tolson Pro Se
Movant(s):
Ronald L. Peterman, a Single Man to Represented By
Edward T Weber
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Patricia P. Gibbs Represented By Richard A Marshack
Trustee(s):
James J Joseph (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 20
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Tammy L Schulman Represented By Jeannine Stewart
Joint Debtor(s):
David J Schulman Represented By Jeannine Stewart
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 91
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Brian Delmer Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Lynn Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 93
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Brian Delmer Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Lynn Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
Docket 167
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Continue hearing to May 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Movant to correct service issue: Notice of the motion does not comply with LBR 9013-1(f) which requires notice of the deadline for the responding party to file an opposition.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Movant accepts the tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 69
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jose Juan Lucio Sr. Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF LARRY D. SIMONS, ATTORNEY FOR RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 66
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jose Juan Lucio Sr. Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons Frank X Ruggier
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant motion for sanctions in the amount of $3,000, payable within 60 days of the entry of the order granting the motion. Deny Plaintiff's request for sanctions against Defendant.
The purpose of the sanction amount is not to punish Plaintiff but to serve as a deterrence to filing a subsequent amended complaint that suffers from the same pleading deficiencies as the original complaint and the first amended complaint. There is no basis for granting Plaintiff's request for sanctions against Defendant.
Preliminary Comments:
At the hearing held on March 12, 2019, this court ruled that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") was granted and that Plaintiff would be allowed one final leave to amend. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a further amended complaint was set as April 12, 2019. The court stated the basis for its decision to dismiss the FAC orally on the record. Noting that Plaintiff was making written notes of the court's oral ruling, the court indicated that would make the oral ruling available in writing
10:30 AM
by posting the same in the tentative ruling field of the court's electronic calendar by close of business the following day, i.e., March 12, 2019. The court did not state that it would issue a formal written ruling, other than the siimple order granting the Motion to Dismiss. The Order granting the Motion to Dismiss was entered on March 28, 2019 9 [docket #65]
On March 13, 2019, the court posted in written form, the basis for granting the Motion to Dismiss in the tentative ruling section of the court calendar, which is available to the public on the court's website. The writing was posted to the public at 5:14 p.m. on March 13, 2019 under Calendar #51 of the March 12, 2019 calendar.
Plaintiff's statement in his Motion to Continue Schedules [sic] ("Motion to Continue") filed on March 28, 2019 that the court never posted a writing setting forth its basis for granting the Motion to Dismiss is incorrect.
As to the current Motion for Sanctions, the court indicated that if Defendant filed by March 19, 2019 a declaration regarding the service of the Motion for Sanctions on Plaintiff twenty-one days prior to the filing of such motion with the court, Plaintiff would be permitted to file a response to such declaration by or before March 26, 2019. Defendant did, in fact, file such a declaration on March 14, 2019 [docket #63]. However, Plaintiff did not file any response to the declaration by March 26, 2019. Instead, on March 28, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Continue.
The Motion to Continue is difficult to follow but it appears to assert that a) Plaintiff is unable to prepare an amended complaint without the court's written analysis regarding its decision to grant the Motion to Dismiss and b) Plaintiff is unable to file an opposition to the declaration filed on March 19, 2019 relating to the instant Motion for Sanctions.
As stated hereinabove, the written analysis has been posted since March 13, 2019. Even if Plaintiff has not seen it, the deadline for filing the amended complaint is not until April 12, 2019. The court will not extend the deadline for amending the complaint.
The written analysis regarding the FAC has no bearing on the declaration
10:30 AM
filed by Defendant on March 19, 2019. Defendant has stated no good reason for not filing a response to such declaration by March 26, 2019. Further, Plaintiff did not indicate at the March 12, 2019 hearing that he would need additional time to respond to the declaration due to medical reasons.
Accordingly, the court will rule on the Motion for Sanctions based upon all pleadings filed by the parties as of March 26, 2019. No extension of time will be granted to Plaintiff.
Substantive Analysis
The Motion was filed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As this is a bankruptcy matter, Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) applies. Rule 9011 is virtually identical to Rule 11. The court, therefore, deems the Motion to be one under Rule 9011. The standards for Rule 11 and Rule 9011 are substantively similar.
Under Rule 9011(b), every person filing a “petition, pleading, written motion, or other paper” with the bankruptcy court makes four certifications to the best of his “knowledge, information and belief” formed after a reasonable inquiry. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b). Three are relevant here. The first is a certification that the paper is not presented for any improper purpose. FRBP 9011(b)(1). The second is that the legal contentions in the paper have a basis in existing law, or a nonfrivolous argument either for the law's extension, modification, or reversal, or for the establishment of new law. FRBP 9011(b) (2). The third is that the paper's factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified as such, are likely to have support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation. FRBP 9011(b)(3). If the Rule is violated, the violator can be sanctioned. FRBP 9011(c).
Under Rule 9011, a filing is frivolous if it is “both baseless—lacks factual foundation—and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.” In re Blue Pine, Inc., 457 B.R. at 75 (citing Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc)). A party “has a duty to conduct a reasonable factual investigation as well as to perform adequate legal research that confirms that his position is warranted by existing law (or by a good faith argument for a modification or extension of existing law).” Id. (citing Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir.2002)). “Thus, a
10:30 AM
finding that there was no reasonable inquiry into either the facts or the law is tantamount to a finding of frivolous.” Id. (citing Townsend, 929 F.2d at 1362).
Rule 9011 applies to pro se parties just as it does represented parties and their lawyers. See Vukadinovich v. McCarthy, 901 F.2d 1439, 1445 (7th Cir. 1990). By the terms of the rule itself, an “unrepresented party” who presents a paper to the court makes the same certifications under Rule 9011(b) that “an attorney” does. See FRBP 9011(b). Although pro se status can be taken into account in imposing sanctions, Vukadinovich, 901 F.2d at 1445, it does not relieve a pro se party from his duties under the rule. See Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358 (5th Cir.1986) (noting that pro se status provides “no impenetrable shield” to sanctions).
In his Motion, Defendant appears to be seeking sanctions under 9011(b)(1) (improper purpose) and 9011(b)(3) (no factual basis). A court may sanction a party if the party files a pleading for an improper purpose, such as to harass, delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. Bankr.Rule 9011(b)(1). A court may also sanction a party if the party files a a pleading containing allegations and factual contentions that do not have evidentiary support or are unlikely to have factual support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. Bankr.Rule 9011(b)(3).
The “improper purpose clause” in Rule 9011(b)(1) is directed at abusive litigation practices. In the Ninth Circuit, frivolousness and improper purpose are considered on a sliding scale, “where the more compelling the showing as to one element, the less decisive need be the showing as to the other.” Dressler v. The Seeley Co. (In re Silberkraus), 336 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir.2003).
The critical question in determining whether Rule 9011(b)(1) has been violated is why the allegedly offending paper was filed.That question is answered by considering whether “objectively ascertainable circumstances” support the inference that the purpose of the filing was improper.
In this case, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on September 7, 2018, entitled "Complaint to Determine Non-Dischargeability of Debts (11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), (3),(4),(7); 11 U.S.C. §727(c),(d),(e);11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2),(4),(6))"
10:30 AM
("Complaint"). Thereafter, in two separate emails sent by Defendant's counsel to Plaintiff on September 10, 2018 and September 11, 2018, counsel admonished Plaintiff that the Complaint failed to set forth specifics facts to support the allegations of tax fraud and bankruptcy fraud. See Declaration of Young Bom Lee Re Meet and Confer [docket #32], Exhibit D. On October 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed his FAC, entitled "First Amended Complaint to Determine Non-Dischargeability of Debts (11 U.S.C. §727(a)(2), (3),(4),(7); 11 U.S.C. §
727(c),(d),(e);11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2),(4),(6))". The only substantive difference between the Complaint and the FAC is that the FAC corrects the amount of the prepetition judgment debt from $395,183 alleged in the Complaint to
$164,755.13. No additional facts were pled in the FAC regarding tax fraud or bankruptcy fraud. As with the Complaint, the FAC is completely devoid of any factual or evidentiary basis for the conclusory allegations set forth therein, to wit:
Regarding Count I of the FAC alleging fraud under 523(a)(2), in paragraphs 3 and 4 alleges that Defendant "made tax report fraud and bankruptcy fraud mainly to avoid payment of products . . . " and that Defendant planned to commit such tax and and bankruptcy fraud at the time he purchased the products from Chul Hui Choi (Plaintiff's predecessor in interest). There are no factual allegations supporting the assertion of tax fraud. As for the allegation that Defendant intended to file bankruptcy at the time of the subject transaction(s), it is undisputed that Plaintiff filed a state court complaint against Defendant on January 22, 2013 alleging that Defendant breached a contract executed by Defendant and Choi on or about April 16, 2009 by failing to pay for products delivered to Defendent by Choi. It is further undisputed that Defendant didn't file the within bankruptcy case until June 4, 2018, approximately nine years after the contract was signed and more than five years after the lawsuit was filed. Such undisputed facts completely undermine Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant planned to file bankruptcy at the time he entered into the agreement with Choi in 2009. See FAC at paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12.
10:30 AM
As for Count II of the FAC, seeking nondischargeability under
523(a)(6), Plaintiff merely recites the language of 523(a)(6), i.e., "willful and malicious injury," and alleges that Defendant "willfully failed to pay [for] products." Plaintiff also repeats that allegation that Defendant planned the 2018 bankruptcy in 2009. See FAC at paragraphs 16-18.
As for Counts III and IV, objecting to discharge under 727(a)(3) and (4), Plaintiff merely recites the statutory language and Defendant's monthly deficit. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's bankruptcy schedules list monthly income of $2740.50 and monthly expenses of $5,142 but fails to indicate how a monthly deficit is actionable under 727(a)(3) or 727(a)(4).
See FAC at paragraphs 20-21, 24, 25.
In sum, the FAC, like the Complaint, is virtually devoid of any factual support whatsoever and does not meet the minimun pleading requirements of either Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (general pleading) or the more particularized requirements of Rule 9(a) for fraud. Plaintiff's belief that he can file a complaint with no factual content and fill in the facts later through discovery is incorrect and inconsistent with FRCP 8 and 9.
The court notes parenthetically that Plaintiff holds himself out as one who is experienced in legal matters. In his declaration filed in Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions, he states "I have had pretty many experiences in federal civil cases " and that he has "many experiences in demurrers in
state cases and motions to dismiss in federal cases." See Opposition to Motion for Sanctions at p. 8, paragraph 3. Indeed, according to a print-out from the records of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Plaintiff filed 165 complaints (mostly small claims and breach of contract claims) from 2000 to 2015. See Declaration of Yong Bom Lee in Support of Motion for
Sanctions " filed March 14, 2019, Exhibit D [docket #63].
Based upon all of the foregoing, this finds that sanctions against Plaintiff under FRBP 9011(b) are appropriate. Plaintiff was advised within
10:30 AM
days of filing the Complaint of the lack of factual or evidentiary support for the claims under Sections 523(a) and 727(a) and had an opportunity to either file an amended complaint correcting what should have been obvious deficiencies or not pursue the adversary any further. He chose to file a nearly identical amended complaint that did not address any of the pleading deficiencies, thereby forcing Defendant's counsel to prepare the Motion to Dismiss. Even after receiving the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff declined to withdraw it, resulting in the filing of the Motion to Dismiss with the court and necessity of scheduling a hearing on the same. The fact that Plaintiff has extensive experience in preparing complaints and with demurrers is relevant to the court's decisionmaking process. The FAC is so lacking in factual content as to fully support a finding under Rule 9011(b)(2) (allegations are not warranted by existing law, e.g., regarding the elements of fraud under 523(a)
or concealment/destruction of documents/failure to maintain records under 727(a)) and especially under Rule 9011(b)(3) (lack of evidentiary support). The Motion is less compelling as to improper purpose, i.e., Rule 9011(b)(1). However, as noted above, the 9th Circuit recognizes a "sliding scale" approach. Plaintiff's willingness to prosecute a dischargeability action despite the lack of factual or evidentiary support could be deemed an improper purpose within the meaning of 9011(b)(1).
Additional Comment:
Plaintiff accuses Defendant's attorney of "bullying." Opposition at p. 8. However, the court can discern no evidence of such conduct by Defendant's counsel based upon the pleadings filed in connection with the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Sanctions. On the contrary, Plaintiff himself has, by his own admission, engaged in improper conduct in this case. Specifically, he admits that on December 27, 2018, during the pendency of this adversary proceeding and while the automatic stay was in effect, and knowing Defendant was represented by counsel, he drove to Defendant's home for the purpose of making direct contact with Defendant. See Opposition at p. 10.
Plaintiff refers to Defendant's attorney's subsequent warning to cease such
10:30 AM
conduct as "bullying." The attorney's reaction to Plaintiff's improper home visit was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 37
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Russell Lane Represented By
Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 42
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Russell Lane Represented By
Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 12-20-18
(Advanced 6-20-19)
Docket 21
NONE LISTED -
December 20, 2018
The court is inclined to continue this hearing as a status conference for 180 days, i.e., until June 20, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow the litigation to conclude. Debtor shall file an updated report regarding the status of the litigation by or before June 6, 2019. (XX)
Comments:
The court has reviewed Debtor's pleading regarding the reasonableness of the exemption. However, the doctor's report providing information regarding surgical costs does not indicate if any of such costs will be covered by insurance.
The trustee asserts that he has no objection to the exemption in the cause of action -- only in the ultimate judgment proceeds, if any. It, therefore, seems premature for the court to make any determination regarding the extent of the exemption until there is an actual recovery.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
10:30 AM
April 4, 2019
Deny Motion.
Trustee has not filed any substantive objection to the Debtor's recovery of
$143,169.72. More specifically, Trustee has not presented any persuasive argument or evidence to overcome the presumed validity of the exemption claimed by Debtor. See, In re Tallerico, 532 B.R. 774, 790 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2015); In re Diaz, 547 B.R. 329, 336 (9th Cir. BAP 2016)
("Generally, a debtor's claimed exemption is presumptively valid, and the party objecting to a debtor's exemption has the burden of proving that the exemption is improper . . . ." "If the objecting party can produce evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity, then the burden of production shifts to the debtor to provide unequivocal evidence to demonstrate that the exemption is proper."). This hearing was scheduled for June 20, 2019; however, the parties agreed to advance the hearing to this date without benefit of any additional briefing by Trustee. Based on what has been presented thus far, the court has no basis for denying the exemption.
Debtor(s):
Russell Lane Represented By
Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Cyrus P. Manalo Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Joint Debtor(s):
Marissa Sinlao Manalo Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 39
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Debtor's Objection to Claim # 13 filed 3/11/2019 - td (3/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric R. Kretzschmar Represented By Stephen Parry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(OSC Issued 3/6/2019)
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Dismiss case due to failure to make February 28, 2019 and March 15, 2019 petition fee installment payments.
Debtor(s):
Jeff Wayne Niblack Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
FR: 1-31-19
Docket 61
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling. The Movant will be allowed a maximum of 10 minutes to highlight arguments in favor of the Motion, Defendant will be allowed 10 minutes to respond and Movant will be allowed 5 minutes of rebuttal argument. The matter will then be taken under submission until February 14, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., at which time the court will issue its oral ruling.
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Represented By Michael G Spector
2:00 PM
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Docket 62
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Represented By Michael G Spector
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Declaratory Relief (Successor Liability); 2. Intentional Fraudulent Transfer; 3. Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; 4. Preservation of Avoided Transfer; 5.
Turnover of Assets; 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 7. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; 8. Unjust Enrichment (Another Summons Issued 12/6/10)
FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19
Docket 55
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 4/4/19 at 2:00 p.m., Per Hearing Held 1/31/19 (XX) - td (2/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Pro Se
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
Docket 4
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 9, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Pro Se
Kaufman Related Mamagement Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01112 Herrera et al v. Blair
FR: 9-21-17; 5-3-18; 5-17-18; 9-6-18; 12-6-18; 1-24-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Continued to 7/11/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/3/2019 (XX) - td (4/3/2019)
September 21, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 28, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Mar. 30, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: May 3, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Apr. 26, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
September 6, 2018
No status report filed. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against counsel for plaintiffs for failure to do so.
Plaintiffs' counsel to appear and advise the court re the outcome of the mediation
9:30 AM
and the status of this adversary.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
December 6, 2018
Both counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant must appear and advise the court why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed against both counsel for failure to comply with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, to wit:
Plaintiffs' counsel has not prepared, transmitted or filed a joint pretrial stipulation as required by LBR 7016-1(c);
Defendant's counsel, having not received a timely draft of a JPS, has not filed or served a proposed pretrial stipulation in accordance with LBR 7016-1(e)(2); and
Neither counsel has advised this court whether the parties attended mediation and the outcome of the same or, if not, why the parties did not attend mediation.
Note: Appearance by all counsel at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly Zinser
Defendant(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Yvonne Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
9:30 AM
Dylan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Ethan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kristine A Thagard Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01016 Marshack v. Nelson
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Kirk M. Nelson Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
Kirk M Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Robert P Goe
Thomas J Eastmond
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01195 La Paz Mortgage, Inc. v. Porter
FR: 1-17-19; 1-31-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 7/11/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/5/2019 (XX) - td (4/5/2019)
January 31, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
La Paz Mortgage, Inc. Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo Alan J Kessel
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Jeffrey G Jacobs
10:00 AM
JAY JAMSHHASB VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 69
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue hearing to May 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to correct defective service -- Debtor was not served per LBR 4001-1(c)(1)(C)(i). Serivce to Debtor's attorney only is insufficient.
Tentative ruling for 5/9/19 hearing: Grant the limited relief requested in the Motion, i.e. determination of marital status only (Motion at p. 6).
Note: If Movant and Trustee accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Maryam Teimoori Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Movant(s):
Jay Jamshhasb Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Manfredo E Lespier
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 62
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 4/9/2019 - td (4/9/2019)
April 11, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Deborah Ambrose Represented By Todd B Becker
Movant(s):
Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Melissa A Vermillion Ashlee Fogle
Erin Elam Nancy L Lee
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 53
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and all other relief requested in the Motion except relief request #11, which is denied.
This court does not grant in rem relief in perpetuity as relief request #11 provides.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
J Scott Williams
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC as Represented By
Todd S Garan
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 58
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and annulment request.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict
Movant(s):
Wenjun Han Represented By
Luke P Daniels
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; AND RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
Docket 26
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 3/22/2019 - td (3/22/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Charles G Krebs Represented By Brian C Whitaker
Joint Debtor(s):
Lindsey E Krebs Represented By Brian C Whitaker
Movant(s):
MECHANICS BANK Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael Molina Represented By Joseph M Tosti
Movant(s):
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union Represented By
Paul V Reza
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; AND JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Nunez Patricio Represented By Jeffrey D Larkin
Movant(s):
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By
Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Frankie Manuel Gonzales Jr. Represented By David Lozano
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline Gonzales Represented By David Lozano
Movant(s):
John Chunchi Wei, Wendy Lynn Wei Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Barry L O'Connor
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue hearing to May 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to correct defective service -- Debtor was not served per LBR 4001-1(c)(1)(C)(i). Serivce to Debtor's attorney only is insufficient.
Tentative ruling for 5/9/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant with 4001(a)(3) relief
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Nelson Antonio Perez Arita Represented By Randy Alexander
Movant(s):
ARNEL MANAGEMENT Represented By Scott Andrews
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(Set at Plan Conf. Hrg. held 9/19/13)
FR: 3-20-14; 4-17-14; 10-16-14; 4-16-15; 10-15-15; 10-13-16; 4-13-17; 10-19-17;
5-3-18; 10-4-18; 10-11-18
Docket 549
OFF CALENDAR: Order Re Motion of Reorganized Debtor for Final Decree and Order Closing Case [Docket #731] Entered 3/13/2019 - td (3/13/2019)
March 20, 2014
Debtor's counsel must appear at today's hearing -- status report doesn't say whether plan payments are current and provides no information as to why the plan needs to be modified. Finally, the report does not indicate whether Debtor is in compliance wtih post-confirmation requirements of the United States Trustee.
As to creditors who are not cashing checks, the court cannot give legal advice or any advisory opinion concerning such matter.
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is required.
-----------------------------------------------------------
April 17, 2014
No tentative ruling
October 16, 2014
10:30 AM
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 16, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by April 2, 2015 (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payment of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm status of compliance prior to the hearing.
April 16, 2015
Continue postconfirmation status conference to October 15, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed by October 1, 2015. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
October 15, 2015
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 14, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 31, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payment of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm status of compliance prior to the hearing.
April 14, 2016
Continue postconfirmation status conference to October 13, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed by September 29, 2016; sanctions in the amount of not less than $100 may be imposed for failure to timely file the updated status report. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
October 13, 2016
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 13, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 30, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payment of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm status of compliance prior to the hearing.
April 13, 2017
Continue postconfirmation status conference to October 19, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed by October 5, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
October 19, 2017
Continue postconfirmation status conference to May 3, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed by April 19, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the
10:30 AM
US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
May 3, 2018
Continue postconfirmation status conference to October 4, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed by September 20, 2018 (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
October 11, 2018
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 11, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 28, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payment of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm status of compliance prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Norman Wright Branyan Represented By Richard H Gibson
10:30 AM
Docket 195
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19; 2-12-19; 3-12-19
Docket 177
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 3/27/2019 - td (3/28/2019)
January 10, 2019
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to provide documentary evidence of the holder of the junior lienholder on the subject property by or before January 22, 2019 (with amended notice if necessary) (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, Debtor has not provided any documentary evidence identifying the holder or authorized agent of the holder of the second deed of trust and, therefore, this court cannot ascertain whether service of this contested matter is proper.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
FR: 1-10-19; 2-12-19; 3-12-19
Docket 179
OFF CALENDAR: Reorganized Debtor's Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 3/26/2019 - td (3/27/2019)
January 10, 2019
[This tentative ruling has been modified since its original posting]
Continue hearing to February 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to 1) provide proper service on the current holder of the second deed of trust on the subject property, and 2) file documentary evidence identifying the holder of the second deed of trust by or before January 22, 2019. (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Preliminary statement: The statements and evidence in support of this Motion are all over the place, making a coherent review of the same nearly impossible.
Although the court is inclined to grant the motion based on the merits, there are issues that need to be addressed:
Debtor represents that the first deed of trust was transferred from Express
10:30 AM
Capital Lending to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as servicer on April 19, 2019 and directs the court to Exhibit 1, which is the proof of claim filed by BofA, the presumed holder of the first deed of trust. However, documents attached to the proof of claim also seem to show that a) Express Capiral Lending assigned a note/deed of trust (not clear if it's the first or second) to Impac Funding Corp. [Exhibit 1, p.49] and b) Impac Funding Corp assigned its interest in the first deed of trust on April 19, 2012 (postpetition) to Wells Fargo Bank with BofA as apparent servicer. [Exhibit 1, p. 50].
There is no documentation or other credible evidence that identifies Impac Funding Corporation, or any other entity, as the holder of the second deed of trust. Accordingly, the court cannot determine whether service of the Motion was proper.
Debtor needs do his research and determine the identity of the holder of the second deed of trust and properly serve that entity. Parenthetically, Debtor also needs to remit plan playments to such entity if it is someone other than Impac.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Luis P Sinibaldi Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
Docket 97
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Brian Delmer Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Lynn Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Claim #5-1 Department Stores National Bank/Macy's$2,700.07
Claim #9-1 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC $10,145.60
Claim #10-1 Quantum3 Group LLC as Agent for Moma Funding LLC $8,056.71 Claim #11-1 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC $19,984.28
Claim #12-1 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC $2,791.07
Docket 100
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant Motion.
Special note: Trustee is cautioned to strictly comply with LBR 3007-1(e) re future omnibus motios.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Brian Delmer Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Lynn Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(Set at Ch 11 Plan Hrg. Held 3-30-17) FR: 10-5-17; 4-5-18; 10-18-18
Docket 399
NONE LISTED -
October 5, 2017
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 5, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 22, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
April 5, 2018
Continue postconfirmation status conference to October 18, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 4, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
October 18, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
10:30 AM
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 11, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 28, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading. The postconfirmation status report [docket #559] qualifies for a Gold Star designation.
April 11, 2019
Continue post-confirmation hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 24, 2019.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Tamar Terzian Alan G Tippie
10:30 AM
Cl. #4-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12110-ES)
Cl. #9-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12106-ES)
Cl. #7-1 Slyvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:12-12109-ES)
Cl. #10-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12112-ES)
FR: 3-12-19
Docket 289
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 6/20/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/8/2019 (XX) - td (4/8/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
Docket 64
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Grant motion for protective order pending determination of pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The SJ Motion is scheduled to take place on May 9, 2019 and addresses the legal issue of the preclusive effect, if any, of the state court judgment on the dischargeability of the debt that is the subject of this adversary proceeding. The opposition states no basis for the necessity of the discovery requests, which are extensive and seek, inter alia, documents, bank statements, and other financial records going back several years, for its defense of the SJ Motion.
Additional comments:
The stay of this adversary proceeding, including discovery, expired upon the entry of the BAPs decision regarding this court's order authorizing the sale of Debtor's appeal rights to Plaintiff in August 2018. See this court's order entered January 24, 2018 [docket #43]. The January 24, 2018 Order permitted motions for additional stays but no such motion was filed by any party until Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Technically, the production of pending discovery became due in August 2018 (or at least by September 30, 2018 -- 30 days after the BAP
10:30 AM
ruling). That said, even though the stay of the adversary expired in August 2018, Defendant did not file his motion to compel until several months later and after the SJ Motion was filed.
Likely tentative ruling re the April 18 2019 Motion to Compel: Grant motion but production not due until 30 days after ruling on the SJ Motion and deny request for atttorneys fees given the fact that Defendant waited 7 months to file the motion.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
[KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 89
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Curtis William Hague Represented By Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By William M Burd
10:30 AM
[BURD & NAYLOR, ATTORNEY FOR KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 84
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Curtis William Hague Represented By Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By William M Burd
10:30 AM
[RINGSTAD & SANDERS LLP, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 86
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Curtis William Hague Represented By Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By William M Burd
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANT FOR KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 81
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Curtis William Hague Represented By Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By William M Burd
10:30 AM
Docket 30
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Overrule Objection without prejudice Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor fails to provide documentary evidence of her spouse's active duty deployment. The Motion is silent as to which of the armed services the spouse is employed and contains contradictory, unsubstantiated statements regarding the dates of active duty. See, e.g., Motion at p. 2; line 13 -- states active duty as being between April 1, 2015 through July 31, 2016 with the SCRA protection period being through July 2017, and compare with Motion at p. 4, line 17-20 indicating active deployment as April 2015 - July 2015 and the SCRA protection period as being through July 2016.
Debtor has provided no evidence of her spouse's interest in the Debtor's residence. In her Schedule A/B, Debtor indicates that she alone owns the property and she lists no co-debtors in Schedule H. The SCRA Sec. 3953 applies only to "an obligation on real or personal property owned by a service member." (emphasis added). Similarly, the 6% cap set forth in SCRA 3927 only applies to debts of the servicemember.
SCRA 3953(c) protects a servicemember from foreclosure as to property the servicemember owns and that is secured by a "mortgage, trust deed, or other
10:30 AM
security in the nature of a mortgage." Debtor provides no legal authority for the proposition that an HOA lien is "in the nature of a mortgage." Indeed, mortgage is, by its nature, a voluntary lien whereas an HOA assessment lien is an involuntary lien.
Debtor provides no legal authority supporting her argument that CC Code 5600(b)(1) limits collection fees and costs to an amount less than the amount of the assessments balance. CC 5600(b)(1) actually states that an association may not impose an assessment or fee that exceeds "the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied." No cap is imposed.
Debtor states in conclusory fasion that the attorneys fees are unreasonable. The court disagrees, especially considering that the default has apparently gone on since approximately 2015.
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01098 Boyajian v. Ascher & Associates
#28.00 CONT'D ORAL RULING RE: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues (Holding Date)
FR: 5-17-18; 7-31-18; 10-25-18; 1-17-19; 1-31-19
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
July 31, 2018
Grant partial summary adjudication as to the Third Claim for Relief (disallowance of Amended Claim) only; abstain as to all other claims for relief pursuant to 28 USC 1334(c)(1). All funds currently being held in the estate for the benefit of Layla Boyajian shall be held for 90 days following entry of the order re the Motion, subject to disposition and/or release by a non-bankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction. After expiration of the 90 days, such funds shall be distributed to Layla Boyajian.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Partial Summary Adjudication: Granted on the ground that The estate has no liability for any part of the Amended Claim as Plaintiff did not obligate himself by written agreement or otherwise for any amounts that may be owing by Layla Boyajian to Defendant.
2:00 PM
Abstention under 28 USC 1334(c)(1)
Pursuant to In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir.1990), permissive abstention under 28 USC 1334(c)(1) is appropriate as to this adversary proceeding based upon the following circumstances:
The alleged lien at issue in this matter concerns a lien against non-estate property, i.e., Layla Boyajian's interest in the sale proceeds;
The remaining claims for relief all involve state law;
This adversary at its core reflects a dispute between two non-debtors -- Defendant and Plaintiff's mother, Layla Boyajian based upon their attorney-client relationship;
Except for the Third Claim for Relief, the adjudication of the remaining claims for relief will have no material impact on the administration of this case where a plan has already been confirmed and largely, if not entirely, consummated.
As Defendant's lien rights, if any, were created under applicable California law, such rights can be efficiently adjudicated in a California state court.
This court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicated the dispute between two nondebtors as such no bankruptcy laws are implicated. Stated otherwise, any claims between the nondebtors neither arose under the Bankruptcy Code or in this chapter 11 case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 11, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of the execution of the settlement agreement.
2:00 PM
If the signature of Layla Boyajian remains an issue, Debtor to advise the court why Mrs. Boyajian is not able to sign the settlement agreement.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
Defendant(s):
Ascher & Associates Represented By Ralph Ascher
Plaintiff(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01098 Boyajian v. Ascher & Associates
FR: 11-2-17; 5-31-18; 6-21-18; 7-31-18; 10-25-18; 1-17-19; 1-31-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 2, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: Mar. 1, 2018 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: Apr. 6, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: May 31, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: May 17, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
April 11, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of settlement.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By
2:00 PM
Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
Defendant(s):
Ascher & Associates Represented By Ralph Ascher
Plaintiff(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
FR: 4-4-19
Docket 62
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Represented By Michael G Spector
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
2:00 PM
Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Declaratory Relief (Successor Liability); 2. Intentional Fraudulent Transfer; 3. Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; 4. Preservation of Avoided Transfer; 5.
Turnover of Assets; 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 7. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; 8. Unjust Enrichment (Another Summons Issued 12/6/10)
FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 4-4-19
Docket 55
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Pro Se
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
2:00 PM
Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 6/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/4/2019 (XX) - td (4/4/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01111 Skipper v. United States Department of Education
FR: 9-6-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 3-19-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to properly serve the complaint and to timely file the proof of service re the same with the court. (XX)
Plaintiff has not filed the proof of service showing proper service of the complaint on the defendant, a United States agency. The proof of service attached to unilateral status report shows service at a P.O. box which is improper. Plaintiff will need to obtain another summons and properly serve the defendant. Plaintiff also needs to review the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court Manual of the Bankruptcy Court of the Central Dist of California re the proper method of service.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018
Continue status conference to December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. As no progress has been made re the filing of a proof of service showing proper
9:30 AM
service to Defendant, the court will issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not Be Dismissed Due to Lack of Prosecution ("OSC"), which OSC shall be set for December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
- OSC issued 11/16/18, dkt #5 - td (11/16/18)
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by March 5, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
Updated status report not filed by April 11, 2019 pursuant to this court's March 8, 2019 Order [docket #15].
Plaintiff to appear and advise the court re the status of negotiations with Defendant.
Debtor(s):
Rubin J Skipper Pro Se
Defendant(s):
United States Department of Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Reuben J Skipper Pro Se
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01118 Smith, III v. Swindell et al
FR: 11-8-18; 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19
Docket 3
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 as to Defendants Casey Swindell and Kimberly Amaral Only filed 8/29/18 - td (8/30/2018)
November 8, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a formal motion to serve complaint by publication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.7004(c). Informal request in a declaration (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 6, 2018
No updated status report filed -- plaintiff's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of the adversary and why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file a status report.
9:30 AM
January 31, 2019
Continue status conference to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by February 25, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
March 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. ; updated Status Report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending mediation, continue status conference to June 20, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 6, 2019.
Note: Appearance at this status conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Defendant(s):
Patrick Swindell Pro Se
David P Hutchens Pro Se
Casey Swindell Pro Se
9:30 AM
Kimberly Amaral Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01187 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
(Another Summons Issued 1/31/19) FR: 1-31-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against attorney for Plaintiff for failing to timely file a status report. In addition, no proof of service has been filed showing proper service to defendants. Continue hearing to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. Court to issue OSC re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute which will be heard on the same date/time as the continued hearing.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
April 18, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue hearing to May 16, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 2, 2019.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01153 Hinker v. Hinker
FR: 12-14-17; 3-22-18; 3-29-18; 6-21-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
March 29, 2018
Continue status conference to June 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated report re status of state court action must be filed by June 7, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 21, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated report re status of state court action must be filed by September 7, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 29, 2018. (XX)
9:30 AM
Special Note: The status report for December 6, 2018 should provide a substantive update of the status/procedural posture of the state court action.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending state court litigation, continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 5, 2019.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Todd Leroy Hinker Represented By
Diane L Mancinelli
Defendant(s):
Todd Leroy Hinker Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Christine Hinker Represented By Marc C Forsythe
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
FR: 12-6-18; 1-24-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 6/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/5/2019 (XX) - td (4/5/2019)
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Pro Se
Cheri Lynn Natzic Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Kevin Meek
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Trail status conference to the 10:30 a.m. calendar, same time as the hearing on the motion to dismiss the involuntary petition.
March 12, 2019
Trail status conference to the 10:30 a.m. calendar, same time as the hearing on the motion to dismiss.
April 18, 2019
Off Calendar. See tentative ruling for #29.
Debtor(s):
Future Income Payment LLC Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 58
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
William Waller Represented By Andrew Moher
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Waller Represented By Andrew Moher
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association Represented By April Harriott Keith Labell Sean C Ferry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 27
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 4/12/2019 - td (4/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Peter Sean Peralta Represented By Heather J Canning
Movant(s):
Matrix Financial Services Represented By Mark S Krause
Erin M McCartney
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTORS
FR: 1-31-19; 3-12-19
Docket 94
OFF CALENDAR: Stipulation Resolving Motion for Relief from Stay filed 4/5/2019; Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of a Contested Matter filed 4/5/2019 - td (4/5/2019)
January 31, 2019
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) waiver if Debtors are not post-confirmation current with payments.
Debtors' opposition re to the Motion based on standing and other non- monetary grounds is overruled for the following reasons:
None of Debtors' standing arguments or authority are persuasive -- the court is surprised that Counsel is raising stale standing/"free house" issues that are not supported by applicable California law.
10:00 AM
More importantly, Debtors voluntarily entered into a postpetition loan modification agreement with Movant's servicer Ocwen and even sought and obtained an order from this court approving the same. See motion requesting approval of the loan modification [docket #33] and order approving the same [docket #49]. According to the "permanent" loan modification more than
$254,000 in prepetition arrears were deemed cured and added to principal. DO DEBTORS NOW WISH TO UNDUE THE LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT?!
Debtors mentioned nothing about standing issues re either the loan modification agreement or re their claim objection to Claim #12 -- the objection to the claim was based solely on the fact that prepetition arrearages has been removed via the loan modification agreement. [docket #36]. This court sustained that portion of the claim objection. See Order at docket #54. Debtors' arguments in their opposition to the instant Motion would effectively render moot this court's prior rulings regarding the loan modification and claims objection. IS THIS WHAT DEBTORS' REALLY WANT?
In light of the court's comments 2 and 3 above, Debtors are judicially estopped from raising any standing issues.
Note: Unless the parties are able to reach a stipulation, appearances at this hearing are required. If the parties need more time to work out an agreement, they may request a continuance to March 12, 2019 or March 19, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. during the the Clerk's calendar roll call.
March 12, 2019
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter. If more time is needed, the hearing may be continued to April 11, 2019 or April 18 at 10:00
a.m. by requesting a continuance during the Clerk's calendar roll call.
Debtor(s):
Julio Cesar Torres Represented By
10:00 AM
Anthony B Vigil
Joint Debtor(s):
Norma Giselle Torres Represented By Anthony B Vigil
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Sean C Ferry Theron S Covey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor stay relief unless the parties are able to agree to the terms of an adequate protection order .
Note: If both parties believe that the hearing should be continued to allow time to negotiate the terms of an adequate protection order, the hearing may be continued by requesting the same at the time of the calendar roll call just prior to the hearing. Available continued dates: May 7, 2019, May 9, 2019 and May 16, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Thanh Van Nguyen Represented By Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Megan E Lees
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Otis Buchanan Jr. Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Movant(s):
Porsche Financial Services, Inc. Represented By Stacey A Miller
Porsche Leasing Ltd. Represented By Stacey A Miller
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Grant motion with 4001(a)(3) waiver -- order shall become effective immediately upon its entry on the court docket.
Overrule Debtor's late-filed opposition for the following reasons:
Debtor's tenancy in the property located at 8088 Santa Inez Way, Buena Park CA terminated before the filing of this bankruptcy case on December 19, 2019 and the filing of the bankruptcy did not restore Debtor's tenancy in the property.
Barret Pulver is the court-appointed executor of the estate of the deceased Thomas Mazibrook and has full authority over the subject property. See Exhibit C to the Motion.
Debtor was present at the Unlawful Detainer trial held on November 26, 2019 in Superior Court before Commissioner Glenn Mondo where Commissioner Mondo granted the right of possession to the property to Moving Party Barret Pulver. See Exhibit D to the Motion.
10:00 AM
On December 4, 2018, the Superior Court issued an Unlawful Detainer Judgment for possession of the property in favor of Moving Party Barret Pulver and against Debtor. See Exhibit D to the Motion.
On December 4, 2018, the Superior Court issued a Writ of Possession in favor of Barret Pulver
The filing of this bankruptcy case has no legal effect whatsoever on order of the Superior Court granting possession of the property to Moving Party Barret Pulver.
If Debtor disputes the validity of the Unlawful Detainer Judgment or the Writ of Possession issued by the Superior Court, he will have to present such dispute directly in Superior Court. This court has no authority to set aside either the Unlawful Detainer Judgment or the Writ of Possession.
Debtor(s):
Matthew Oscar Storman Pro Se
Movant(s):
Barret Pulver Represented By
Paul E Gold
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 24
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stacey White Kinney Represented By Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Sean C Ferry
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Douglas Robert Redding Represented By Sunita N Sood
Joint Debtor(s):
Dana Marie Redding Represented By Sunita N Sood
Movant(s):
Douglas Robert Redding Represented By Sunita N Sood Sunita N Sood Sunita N Sood
10:00 AM
Sunita N Sood Sunita N Sood Sunita N Sood
Dana Marie Redding Represented By Sunita N Sood Sunita N Sood Sunita N Sood
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[EDWARD WOLKOWITZ, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 986
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Special Note: Congratulations, Mr. Wolkowitz!
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Imperial Credit Industries Inc Represented By David L. Neale Daniel H Reiss
David R. Weinstein
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Tavi C Flanagan Jeffrey M. Reisner Mike D Neue William N Lobel Edward M Wolkowitz James E Till
Kerri A Lyman Michael K Sugar
10:30 AM
[IRELL & MANELLA, COUNSEL TO EDWARD M. WOLKOWITZ, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 982
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Imperial Credit Industries Inc Represented By David L. Neale Daniel H Reiss
David R. Weinstein
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Represented By Tavi C Flanagan
Jeffrey M. Reisner
10:30 AM
Mike D Neue William N Lobel Edward M Wolkowitz James E Till
Kerri A Lyman Michael K Sugar
10:30 AM
[GURSEY / SCHNEIDER LLP, ACCOUNTANTS FOR THE TRUSTEE]
Docket 981
NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Imperial Credit Industries Inc Represented By David L. Neale Daniel H Reiss
David R. Weinstein
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Represented By Tavi C Flanagan
Jeffrey M. Reisner Mike D Neue William N Lobel
10:30 AM
Edward M Wolkowitz James E Till
Kerri A Lyman Michael K Sugar
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 363(m); and (4) Approving Compromise of Controversy Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019
FR: 10-11-18; 11-8-18; 12-13-18; 2-7-19
Docket 52
NONE LISTED -
November 8, 2018
Comments re the Motion/Opposition
According to the claims register, proofs of claim have been filed in the amount of approximately $33,000. Presumably, the current bid of $63,000 would be sufficient to pay such claims 100% with interest.
The court presumes claims could be paid 100% with interest but such is not clear as the trustee has not indicated what the amount of administrative expenses would be. Trustee needs to provide this information.
The court is open to granting the Motion (subject to overbid at the hearing) unless Debtors pay all claims with interest at the offered rate of 5% as well as all administrative expenses, in full within 15 days of the hearing date, at which time the claim against Bank of American will be deemed abandoned to Debtors.
If Debtors are unable to pay all claims and adminstrative expenses in full in indicated above, then the sale to Bank of America may be immediately
10:30 AM
consummated in the amount of $63,000.
The court notes that on Nov. 5, 2018, Debtors filed a skeletal motion to convert to chapter 11 without providing any evidence of an ability to fund a chapter 11 plan. Clearly, it's in the best interest of creditors of the estate to be paid in full immediately than to wait until a chapter 11 plan is confirmed and consummated.
April 18, 2019
Grant the motion, subject to overbid. The sale will take place outside the courtroom.
Overrule Debtors' objection to the sale.
Debtor(s):
James E. Case Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura M. Case Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
Docket 67
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 5/9/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order Entered 4/15/2019 (XX) - td (4/15/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
FR: 8-17-17; 11-16-17; 2-1-18; 5-24-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-13-18
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 17, 2017
Claims Bar Date: Oct. 23, 2017 (notice by 8/21/17)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl. Stmt: Nov. 1, 2017
Continued Status Conference: Nov. 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated
by 11/2/17 stmt has been case the no filed and the
be continued to stmt hearing. (XX)
status report to be filed unless the plan/discl. timely filed, in which status report need be status conference will the date of the discl.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in
10:30 AM
substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of the Debtor to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
November 16, 2017
Continue status conference to February 1, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report must be filed by January 18, 2018 unless a timely filed disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of a status report will be waived. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
February 1, 2018
Continue status conference to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed no later than May 10, 2018, unless a plan and disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of an updated report will not be required. Extend deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement to May 1, 2018. No further continuances will be granted. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
May 31, 2018
Continue chapter 11 status conference to July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; the court shall issue an order to show cause why this case should not be
10:30 AM
dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization or file a disclosure statement. The hearing on the OSC shall also be held on July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This court previously indicated that no further extensions of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement beyond May 1, 2018 would be granted. Debtor and its counsel apparently view the court's deadlines as mere suggestions. Nothing in Debtor's current status report justifies any further extensions. Debtor has basically "parked" itself for approximately one year in this noncomplex chapter 11 case and cavalierly intends to remained parked for at least 17 months without filing a plan and disclosure statement. This will not happen.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
July 19, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 6, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
September 20, 2018
This case has now been pending for more than a year. The status reports continue to sing the same tune about reaching a resolution with the IRS but virtually no progress has been made since the last status conference. Time is up. If a stipulation is not reached with the IRS or an adversary filed by October 15, 2018, the case will be dismissed. Given the number of continuances and time that has been granted to Debtor and the IRS with no
10:30 AM
results, the court no longer sees the need to set an Order To Show Cause re Dismissal. The case will simply be dismissed on October 16, 2018 absent a filed stipulation or adversary proceeding due to inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization.
December 13, 2018
Dismiss case due to inability of Debtor to propose a plan of reorganization. The case has been pending for 18 months without the filing of a plan and disclosure statement as previously ordered by the court. The incorporates its comments set forth in its September 20, 2018 tentative ruling (see above).
April 18, 2019
Dismiss case.
This case has now been pending for nearly two years with no contemplated plan of reorganization. Debtor wishes to continue to prop up this empty case up for the sole purpose of executing an agreement with an apparently reluctant IRS. The IRS apparently seems to have no sense of urgency regarding this case. Counsel for the IRS represented to the court on November 13, 2018 that approval from D.C. of the settlement should be obtained within 60-90 days. However, five months later, there is no approval in sight. Debtor will need to resolve its issues with the IRS outside bankruptcy.
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
10:30 AM
Jerome Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
Docket 66
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 5/16/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/16/2019 (XX) - td (4/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 81
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion in Chapter 11 Case for the Entry of an Order Closing Case on Interim Basis; Case Closed 2/28/2019 - td (2/28/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mary Elizabeth Schaffer Represented By Andrew S Bisom
10:30 AM
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
The First Amended Disclosure Statement appears to be just as inadequate as the original. The court is leaning toward denying approval of this one as well.
Comments re the First Amended Disclosure Statement (DS)
An order granting relief from stay to BNYM was entered on April 15, 2019. Debtors need to address the impact of the RFS Order on the pending plan and disclosure statement.
DS, pg 5: Debtor lists FMV as $2.7M. Is this realistic in light of a) The bank's appraisal of $2.2M and b) the impending foreclosure?
DS, pg. 6:lines 3-13: Needs to be revised to reflect RFS being granted. See also pp. 8, 10, 11 and 13 and Exhibit A.
DS, pg. 6: Debtors need to describe the Fresno commercial property owned by their LLC, as well as its value and liens against it. Does the property operate at a profit or must Debtors contribute from their own funds to maintain it each month?
DS, pg. 7: Debtors need to describe the litigation with US Bank pending in state court and how/when the litigation will be prosecuted. How will Debtors fund the litigation?
10:30 AM
DS, pg. 12: Debtors indicate that if the Lemon Heights property is surrendered (or presumably lost through foreclosure), they will make the Tustin property their principal residence. Such a move has 1123(b)(5) implications (prohibition against modifying the terms of a loan securing a debtor's principal residence) which would be inconsistent with the treatment of Class 5.
DS, pp.13-14: Re Means of Effectuating the Plan, no financial information is provided whatsoever re Debtors' monthly income Social Security and Pensions. There is a reference on page 14, lines 11-12 to an Exhibit 1 but there is no Exhibit 1 attached to the DS. Exhibit A provides gross rental income but does not provide net rental income or any information regarding monthly expenses necessary to maintain the rental properties.
No motion to employ a real estate broker has been filed re the Camino Santa Elise property though the plan provides for a sale prior to the effective date.
No mention of the $2,000 postpetition retainer paid to Debtors' counsel
The County of Orange has filed a secured claim in the amount of
$37,900.50 that is not treated in the Plan. POC 4-1.
Is Debtor postpetition current on the properties that are being retained under the Plan?
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
Case; and (2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 9-6-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 3-21-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues which are not addressed in the status report:
Cash Collateral: Debtor has rental income but there is no mention of seeking authorization to use cash collateral or a cash collateral stipulation.
State Court Litigation: More information regarding the nature and procedural posture of the state court action is required. What was going on in the litigation that caused this case to be filed? How will this litigation be dealt with in the bankruptcy case?
Plan/Disclosure Statement: This case appears to be relatively straightforward but the timing of filing a plan and disclosure statement is not discussed in the status report.
Tentative Schedule:
Claims Bar Date: Nov. 19, 2018 (notice by Sept. 17, 2018)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: Nov. 29, 2018
Con't Status Conf: Dec. 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Updated Status Report Due: Dec. 6, 2018 (waived if plan/DS timely filed)
10:30 AM
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 20, 2018
Impose sanctions in the amount against Debtor's for 1) failure to file a plan and disclosure statement and failure to timely file a status report in accordance with the court's September 6, 2018 order. No explanation is offered as why the plan and disclosure statement were not filed by November 29, 2018. No attempt was made to seek an extension of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement. Apparently, counsel views the dates set forth in such order as a mere suggestion which can otherwise be ignored.
The court will issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely file a plan and disclosure statement and to comply with orders of the court.
Note: Apppearance at this hearing is required.
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of related matter on today's calendar.
March 21, 2019
Continue chapter 11 status conference to April 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of disclosure statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
April 18, 2019
No tentative ruling; outcome will depend upon the disposition of #24 on today's calendar.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
Docket 43
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Proof of Claim filed 3/25/2019 by Attorney for Creditor Sutter Creek Homeowners Association; Debtor's Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Objection to Proof of Claim # 4-1 filed 3/27/2019 - td (3/27/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Graciela Garcia Represented By
Joseph Arthur Roberts
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 22
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation Regarding Counsel's Fees Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 329 Entered 4/8/2019 - td (4/8/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Heriberto Moreno Represented By Lionel E Giron
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 3-12-19
Docket 23
- NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Continue hearing to April 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor correct service issue -- JPMorgan Chase Bank not served per FRBP 7004(h) as required by FRBP 3007(a)(2) for insured depository institutions. (XX)
Tentative ruling for 4/18/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
Service issue corrected. Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Kristy Lorraine Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Joint Debtor(s):
Mark S Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
Dismiss the involuntary petition under Section 305(a)(1) in light of the fact that this court is enjoined from taking any action in this bankruptcy case per the District Court's Order entered in the US District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division, CR No. 6:19-239 on or about April 12, 2019 ("District Court Receivership Order")
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The District Court Receivership Order specifically stays all "civil legal proceedings of any nature, including, but not limited to, bankruptcy proceedings, arbitration proceedings, . . ." involving any of the "Receivership Entities" [defined as including Debtor]. Supplemental Declaration of Michael Hauser Regarding Attached Supplemental Declaration of William J. Watkins, Jr., Exhibit A at p. 6. (emphasis added).
The stay alone is grounds for dismissal of this bankruptcy case. Abstention accomplishes nothing as the assets of Debtor will be administered by the Federal Receiver in due course.
Additional Comments regarding the OSC:
The court previously declined to fully grant the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Peiffer/Rikard claimants, primarily on the ground that the motion was
10:30 AM
unsupported by evidence. The court did, however, dismiss the various "AKAs" which are separate and independent business entities (the Bankruptcy Code does not permit joint petitions by affiliated business entities).
While the court declined to dismiss the named debtor, Future Income Payment LLC ("Debtor"), at the March 12, 2019 hearing, the court was concerned about the sustainability of the case in light of the federal indictment of Debtor and its principal Scott Kohn. More specifically, it was unclear to the court how accurate schedules could be filed in order to permit the case to be viably administered.
Rather than blindly issue a Rule 1007(k) order directing either the interim chapter 7 trustee or a petitioning creditor, the court determined that the best course of action would be to issue an OSC regarding the issue of the schedules. Indeed, the interim trustee indicated at the March 12 hearing that she did not have access to any of Debtor's books and records as the same had been seized by federal authorities as part of a pending criminal investigation.
Having reviewed all of the responses to the OSC by the various parties, the court finds the declaration and supplemental declaration of Assistant U.S. Attorney William J. Watkins, Jr. ("Watkins") to be informative, compelling and enlightening. Among other things, Watkins advises that a) the Government has seized virtually all, if not all, of Debtor's books and records and has the best information/documentation of Debtor's financial records; b) the records seizure was part of a federal grand jury investigation and, as such, cannot be shared with the interim bankruptcy trustee or any other party; c) since the March 12 hearing, a Federal Receiver has been appointed by the District Court in South Carolina and such Receiver has wide-ranging access to seized books and records as well as the authority to collect, marshal and take custody and control of assets of Debtor [see Exhibit A to the Supplemental Declaration of William J. Watkins, Jr. -- Docket 66]; d) the FBI has already seized $2.3M in assets of Debtor and/or its principal Scott Kohn; and e) the Receivership proceeding includes oversight re restitution to victims.
It is apparent that the Petitioning Creditors cannot file schedules that
10:30 AM
provide reliable information concerning Debtor's true and extensive financial affairs given the investigatory action already taken by the FBI without access to the seized records.
In light of all the foregoing circumstances, there is no continuing need or point to the continuation of this involuntary case, even on an abstention basis. Dismissal is appropriate. See, In re Michael S. Starbuck, Inc., Inc., 14 B.R. 134, 135 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981) (the court dismissed an involuntary case where there was a pending SEC receivership, finding that “there is no need to invoke the machinery of the bankruptcy process if there is an alternative means of achieving the equitable distribution of assets”). The court agrees with the reasoning and application of Starbuck to the matter at hand.
Debtor(s):
Future Income Payment LLC Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
FR: 1-31-19; 2-12-19
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Hearing continued to 7/11/19 at 2:00pm, per order entered 4/15/19 (XX) - td (4/15/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Represented By
Todd C. Ringstad
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
(Another Summons Issued 9/13/18) FR: 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19
Docket 3
CONTINUED: Status conference continued to 7/11/19 at 2:00pm, per order entered 4/15/19 (XX) - td (4/15/2019)
January 31, 2019
Continued to March 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Pro Se
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:00 AM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:00 AM
Docket 26
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:00 AM
Docket 6
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Siamak Iravantchi Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
1:30 PM
Docket 20
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Adrian Elizarraras Represented By David R Chase
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 2/8/2019 - td (2/8/2019)
Debtor(s):
Christine H Chung Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 2/15/2019 - td (4/5/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Henry Jarrett Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Herminigilda Garcia Manalo Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Loren Tramontano Represented By Paul Y Lee
Joint Debtor(s):
Monique Chevalier Represented By Paul Y Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dawn Marie Baker Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 1/28/2019 - td (1/28/2019)
Debtor(s):
Maria De La Cruz Flores Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Tracey Trang Vu Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 1/17/2019; Case Closed 3/27/2019 - td (4/4/2019)
Debtor(s):
Doo M Ko Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 2/20/2019 - td (4/4/2019)
Debtor(s):
Barbara Jean Bausch Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 1/22/2019 - td (1/22/2019)
Debtor(s):
Laura Rivera Represented By
A Mina Tran
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 7
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jose Manuel Perez Dominguez Represented By Sam Benevento
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 5
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 1/28/2019 - td (1/28/2019)
Debtor(s):
Tricia Burke Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 1/28/2019 - td (1/28/2019)
Debtor(s):
Jesus Lugo Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kristy Lorraine Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Joint Debtor(s):
Mark S Haffar Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Pejman Pirmoradi Represented By Alon Darvish
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric Michael Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Joint Debtor(s):
Celena Renee Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jose F. Lopez Represented By
Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 22
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric R. Kretzschmar Represented By Stephen Parry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 10-23-18; 1-22-19; 3-26-19
Docket 51
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Brian Lee Head Represented By Alaa A Yasin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 84
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nguyen D. Uong Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 111
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Justin William Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Heather Ann Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
]FR: 3-26-19
Docket 80
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rocio Lopez Namdar Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 110
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Catherina D. Salazar Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 88
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric Anthony Perez Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 59
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gary Snavely Represented By
Thomas B Ure
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 54
SPECIAL NOTE: Debtors' Notice of Withdrawal of Opposition to Trustee's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Hearing filed 3/20/2019 - td (3/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
William Waller Represented By Andrew Moher
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Waller Represented By Andrew Moher
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Juanita Torres Represented By Michael E Hickey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daryl John Parks Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 32
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Imelda Macedo Represented By
Rabin J Pournazarian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 51
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 1-22-19; 3-26-19
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 113
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Giuseppe Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Joint Debtor(s):
Heldia F. De Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 33
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Hildegard Katharina Brandt Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 34
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thanh Van Nguyen Represented By Seema N Sood
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 28
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 34
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Patrick Rupp Represented By Kaveh Ardalan
Joint Debtor(s):
Rogedola Geraldina Ajike Rupp Represented By Kaveh Ardalan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 12-20-18; 1-29-19; 3-13-19
Docket 623
CONTINUED: HEARING CONTINUED TO MAY 10, 2019 AT 2:00 PM
(ANNOUNCED AT HEARING HELD ON MARCH 19, 2019) (XX) - es/td (3/20/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 400
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 355
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 357
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 330
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 326
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 339
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 326
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 612
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
Docket 513
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 501
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 501
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
Docket 505
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
9:00 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01100 Hao v. Naderi
(Reserved at PTC Held 10-25-18; Set at PTC held 1-31-19)
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Settlement Agreement was Signed, Per Vivian of Plaintiff's Attorney's Office - td (4/25/2019)
Phone call with Vivian from Plaintiff's attorney's office. Settlement agreement is being circulated that fully resolves the adversary proceeding. - sb (4/3/2019 4:58 PM)
Phone call from Viviann from Plaintiff's attorney's office. Settlement agreement was signed so trial can be taken off-calendar. - sb (4/4/2019 5:08 PM).
Debtor(s):
Farhad Naderi Represented By Halli B Heston
Defendant(s):
Farhad Naderi Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Bin Hao Represented By
Chi L Ip
9:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(Set at SC held 9-20-18)
FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19; 3-27-19
Docket 544
- NONE LISTED -
December 11, 2018
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION ADAM MEISLIK
Special Note:
The evidentiary objections were reviewed using the evidentiary standard required for expert testimony in light of Judge Clarkson's Order entered on May 14, 2018 [docket #434] permitting Mr. Meislik's employment as Debtor's expert witness.
Specifically, the court considered FRE Rules 702 and 703 as well as the Advisory Committee Notes to the same regarding the appropriate application of the USSC's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993) in light of the amendments to Rules 702 and 703 in 2000.
As Rule 602 (lack of personal knowledge) does not apply to expert testimony under Rule 703, all objections to the Declaration under Rule 602 are overruled.
It is well-settled that an expert, in forming an opinion, may rely on evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible, such as hearsay. See, e.g., U.S. v. Vera, 1770 F.3d 1232, 1237 ("[A]n expert witness may offer opinions
10:00 AM
based on such inadmissible testimonial hearsay, as well as any other form of inadmissible evidence, if 'experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.' Fed.R.Evid. 703").
All evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Adam Meislik are overruled except as set forth below
Objection No. Ruling:
28 Sustained: speculation -- insufficient basis for opinion
Sustained: improper legal opinion/conclusion as to impairment and fair and equitable under Bankruptcy
Code.
Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "This treatment is fair and equitable for purposes of Section 1129(b)(2)(A)". Improper
opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert
testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "Accordingly . . . to the end of paragraph 37.
Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of
expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "Accordingly . . . to the end of paragraph 39.
Improper opinion/ legal conclusion.Beyond scope of
expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
10:00 AM
Sustained. Argument. Relevance
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to first two sentences: "As demonstrated . . .
review
chapter 7 trustee for liquidation. Improper opinion/legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so
under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Overruled as to the balance of the testimony in Obj #51..
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "The Plan also meets the feasibility requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. In this regard, and". Improper opinion/legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Overruled as to the balance of the testimony in Obj. #56.
60 Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
April 30, 2019
Comments re the Confirmation Hearing:
10:00 AM
Live Testimony
Live Testimony will be limited to the cross examination of Adam Meislik and Debtor John Bral. The scope of examination will be limited to the Declarations submitted by each gentleman in support of plan confirmation. As to Mr. Meislik's declaration, the court's tentative ruling re the evidentiary objections are as set forth above re the December 11, 2018 hearing.
Cross examination will be limited to a total of one hour per witness, inclusive of initial and follow-up questions.
Re-direct examination will be limited to 30 minutes.
Class 3 - Claim of Michelle Easton
Based upon the court's review of the evidence and argument submitted, the court's tentative ruling is as follows.
The court sees nothing improper about the treatment of Ms. Easton's claim under the plan. Simply put, in early February 2017,Ms. Easton loaned Debtor $35,000 shortly before the bankruptcy filing later that month to allow Debtor to pay a retainer for a bankruptcy attorney to handle his chapter 11 case. She received as security for the loan, a junior lien on Debtor's Irvine residence as well as a lien on Debtor's interest in one of his businesses. The note provided for monthly interest payments with the principal becoming all due and payable in December 2019. Accordingly to deposition testimony highlighted by the objecting Beitler creditors, Ms. Easton was less concerned with the maturity date than she was with receiving a security interest. The loan proceeds were, in fact, used to pay a retainer to Debtor's bankruptcy counsel. Approximately 5 months into the case, Debtor negotiated with Ms. Easton to extend the maturity date by four years. Debtor has stated that the extension was necessary because, due to the amount of litigation in the bankruptcy case, he didn't think he could pay the entire $35,000 by December 2019. The fact that Ms. Easton was a friend of Debtor's who did not perform "due diligence" that a commercial lender would perform is no moment. As for the timing of the sale of the Irvine property, the Plan provides first for the liquidation of Debtor's interest in the Mission and Westcliff LLCs,
10:00 AM
which will be determined by arbitration proceedings. If the liquidation of Debtor's interest is insufficient to pay creditors in full, Debtor intends to liquidate other nonexempt property, which could include the Irvine property.
C. 1129(a)(5)
Section 1129(a)(5) does not apply to individual debtors. In any event, objecting creditors have not provided evidence sufficient for the court to make a finding that Debtor is incapable of administering the estate postconfirmation, especially in light of the fact that the liquidation of Mission and Westcliff will occur through arbitration proceedings.
Professional Fee Claim Lien
The confirmation order to specify that the Professional Fee Claim Lien is not priming any secured claims existing on the effective date of the Plan and the Professional Fee Claim Lien will be paid after the secured claims, unless the secured claims are determined to be unsecured at a later date.
Closing Statements
Debtor will make initial closing statements -- not more than 30 minutes
Objecting Creditors will make responsive closing statements -- not more than 30 minutes
Debtor will make final closing statements -- not more than 15 minutes
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
FR: 9-20-18 (Per Order Entered 10/16/18) FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19; 3-27-19
Docket 558
- NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Motion to Strike/Objection to Claim:
The court has not yet completed its review of this motion and related pleadings. The court understands that this motion has been pending for several months and that several hearings have been held re the same. The parties are to confirm that the issue necessitating oral testimony was ruled on by Judge Clarkson.
The court expects that this Motion might not be ruled upon prior to the Confirmation Hearing. Affects Objections to Claim #s 9, 11, 14 and 16.
Claim Objections:
Hearings to be set in 2019 re outstanding claim objections
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen
10:00 AM
Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Derivative; (2) Constructive Trust
(Advanced from 6-14-18)
FR: 6-7-18; 7-19-18; 12-20-18
Docket 47
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 111 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01049 Rehburg v. Helton-Rehburg
FR: 6-21-18; 1-31-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice filed 11/29/2018, Document #111 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Represented By Christopher P Walker
Defendant(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa M. Rehburg Represented By Bradley D Blakeley
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01031 Escolar-Chua v. United States Department of Education et al
FR: 5-17-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18
Docket 6
SPECIAL NOTE: 1) Order Approving Stip. for Discharge of Educational Loan Debt, Dismissal of Certain Defendants, and to Add Educational Credit Mgmt Corp. as a Defendant in this Adv. Proceeding Entered 4/24/2018 - td (5/8/2018). 2) Order Approving Stip. RE: Determination that Student Loan is Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8) as Between Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Only Entered 9/19/18. Judgment Entered 9/19/18. Two Defendants Remaining - td (9/19/2018)
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 7/11/19 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 10/23/18 (XX) - td (10/23/2018)
Debtor(s):
John Paul Marc Z. Escolar-Chua Represented By
Christine A Kingston
Defendant(s):
United States Department of Represented By Elan S Levey
University of Southern California Pro Se
Wells Fargo Education Financial Pro Se
9:30 AM
Educational Credit Management Represented By
Scott A Schiff
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Represented By John H Kim
Navient Solutions, LLC Represented By Robert S Lampl
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
Plaintiff(s):
Jacqueline Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 95
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 383 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 327
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 338 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 329
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 340 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 298
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 309 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 68
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 306 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Fruadulent Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Bickford Ranch, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 77
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 318 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
(5) to Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers [Debtor: SunCal Emerald Meadows, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 69
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 306 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Marblehead, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 105
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 592 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Heartland, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 99
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 496 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 98
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 484 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 98
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 484 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: Delta Coves Venture LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18
Docket 100
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 5/7/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 11/29/2018, Document # 488 (XX) - td (12/7/2018)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-11-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19;
1-31-19; 2-12-19
Docket 72
- NONE LISTED -
July 11, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Nastaran Maboudi to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
9:30 AM
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
February 12, 2019
Nastaran Maboudi to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
May 7, 2019
9:30 AM
No tentative ruling; Judgment creditor's attorney to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-27-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-31-19;
2-12-19
Docket 74
- NONE LISTED -
July 27, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
9:30 AM
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
February 12, 2019
Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
May 7, 2019
9:30 AM
No tentative ruling; Judgment creditor's attorney to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19; 1-31-19; 2-12-19
Docket 130
- NONE LISTED -
June 21, 2018
No response to OSC filed. If examinees do not appear for examination on this date, they will be found to be in contempt.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Ms. Maboud's request to vacate the court's ruling requiring payment of $1,000 for failure to appear at a prior examination is denied as none of the reasons she cites constitute grounds for not compensating Plaintiff's counsel for appearing for her examination or for excusing Ms. Maboud from appearing at the examination. The amount must be paid within 30 days. CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 12, 2019 AT 9:30 A.M. (XX)
9:30 AM
Special note: Plaintiff has not lodged an order re the September 13, 2018 ruling and needs to do so promptly.
The motion was not properly noticed and, therefore, does not appear on the court's formal calendar;
The motion is not supported by a sworn statement under penalty of perjury as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1.
Even if the unsworn statement is accepted, it does not state grounds sufficient to warrant setting aside the court's September 13, 2018 ruling re the imposition of sanctions. This amount must be paid.
February 12, 2019
No tentative ruling
May 7, 2019
No tentative ruling; Judgment creditor's attorney to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Derivative; (2) Constructive Trust
(Advanced from 6-14-18)
FR: 6-7-18; 7-19-18; 12-20-18; 5-2-19
Docket 47
- NONE LISTED -
July 19, 2018
The following discovery schedule applies to Plaintiff and Defendant Haleh Fardi: Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 19, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Nov. 16, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Dec. 6, 2018
Deadline for Plaintiff to move for entry of default judgments as to non-answering
defendants: Sept. 21, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
May 7, 2019
9:30 AM
Court's Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
A demand for jury trial has been made. Each party is required indicate whether they consent or do not consent to the jury trial being conducted in this court. Absent 100% consent by all parties, the jury trial must be held in District Court. Statements re consent or nonconsent to this court conducting the jury trial must be filed with the court by May 21, 2019.
The facts to which Defendant Russell Wallace admitted to in his answer should be reflected in the Admitted Facts Section of the Stipulation.
Re Section (c)(1) of the Issues of Law, why must a determination be made at trial re whether Mr. Redman and Mr. Martin breached their fiduciary duties to 29 Prime when defaults have been entered against both gentlemen?
Why isn't Ms. Fardi ready for trial? The reason(s) should have been set forth in the Stipuation.
Any motions in limine need to be filed no later than June 18, 2019 and scheduled for hearing no later than July 16, 2019.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
9:30 AM
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01049 Rehburg v. Helton-Rehburg
FR: 6-21-18; 1-31-19; 5-2-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 8/8/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 12/27/2018 (XX) - td (12/27/2018)
June 21, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Nov. 1, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 11, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Jan. 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
(XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Jan. 17, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Represented By Christopher P Walker
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa M. Rehburg Represented By Bradley D Blakeley
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 113
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 4/29/2019 - td (4/29/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bert Ranelycke-Svensson Represented By Scott Dicus
Movant(s):
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By
Nancy L Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 55
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Vu Ngoc Nguyen Represented By Raymond J Seo
Joint Debtor(s):
Quynh-Trang T. Nguyen Represented By Raymond J Seo
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
California State Teachers Retirement Represented By
Gilbert R Yabes Jennifer C Wong Nancy L Lee Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 20
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
If Debtor is now current through April 2019, the court will grant a standard adequate protection order in favor of Movant. The parties are encouraged to discuss the terms of such an order prior to the hearing. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance of today's hearing at the time of the calendar roll call by the clerk prior to the hearing. Available continued dates are May 16, 2019, May 30, 2019 and June 13, 2019.
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Movant(s):
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST Represented By
Dane W Exnowski
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Richard G Dobbs Represented By Tate C Casey
Joint Debtor(s):
Alexandra C Dobbs Represented By Tate C Casey
Movant(s):
Bank of America, N.A. Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Megan E Lees
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 17
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and annulment
Special note: As this Debtor had a prior bankruptcy case that was dismissed on 2/5/19, the automatic stay expired 30 days after the 2/11/19 filing date or 3/13/19 (no motion to extend the stay was timely filed). Accordingly, action taken by Movant on 3/26/19 technically did not violate the automatic stay so annulment would not be needed. That said, the court is willing to approve an order with annulment in it, especially since Debtor failed to list Movant as a creditor.
Debtor's objection to annulment is overruled.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Emil Peter Joros Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
UDR Harbor Greens L.P. Represented By
James Edward McDaniel
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 26
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Continue hearing to June 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow moving party to provide evidence of his ownership interest in the subject property.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
The moving party states in the Motion that he is the "owner" of the subject property. However, the lease identifies the landlord as "Exlnt Property Management Co." At a minimum, movant needs to provide a sworn statement as to when he acquired title to the subject property. Relief from stay is appropriate if the moving party can establish "colorable" title to the property, which is a fairly low standard. However, no information is provided regarding moving party Terry Martin's interest in the property. If such information can be provided, the motion will be granted.
Debtor(s):
Criss Tina Lenhart Pro Se
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Terry Martin Represented By
Barry L O'Connor
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and annulment. Deny request for "co-debtor stay" relief as such relief is not relevant in a chapter 7 case.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Frederic Nathaniel Topping Represented By Joseph M Tosti
Joint Debtor(s):
Victoria Jan Topping Represented By Joseph M Tosti
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Jay, Kelley Hutchison Represented By Barry L O'Connor
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Martin Garcia Represented By Gregory E Nassar
Joint Debtor(s):
Brenda Jo Garcia Represented By Gregory E Nassar
Movant(s):
BMW Bank of North America Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Cheryl A Skigin
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 20
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Special note: The court is granting this motion even though Movant's use of thee "Suggested List Price" of $56,888 for the value of the vehicle, results in "equity" of $5,000. The face of the NADA Guides Value Report [Exhibit 3 to the Motion] expressly states that the "Suggested List" price "reflects the approximate price of the unit when it is brand new." (emphasis added). The court notes that the vehicle, purchased in June 2017 per the purchase agreement [Exhibit 1 to the Motion], is nearly two years old and not brand new. Accordingly, the court doubts the value is much more than the principal balance of $51,886.14. Counsel for movant is cautioned to pay closer attention to his own evidence in future cases.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Martin Garcia Represented By Gregory E Nassar
Joint Debtor(s):
Brenda Jo Garcia Represented By Gregory E Nassar
Movant(s):
LOGIX FEDERAL CREDIT Represented By Reilly D Wilkinson
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
LISA WILL, TRUSTEE OF THE ZIMMERMAN LIVING TRUST DATED DECEMBER 19, 1991
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 6/20/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 5/1/2019 (XX) - td (5/1/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Movant(s):
Lisa Will Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Emily Scott Represented By
Scott Dicus
Movant(s):
Kinecta Federal Credit Union Represented By
Bruce P. Needleman
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
DAVID K. LEICHTFUSS; KATHLEEN W. LEICHTFUSS, TRUSTEES, LEICHTFUSS FAMILY TRUST UTD NOVEMBER 20, 1991
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Pete Rios Sanchez Pro Se
Movant(s):
David K. Leichtfuss; Kathleen W. Represented By
Scott Andrews
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS.
DEBTOR FR: 4-18-19
Docket 38
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. §362 (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 4/18/2019 - td (4/19/2019)
April 18, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor stay relief unless the parties are able to agree to the terms of an adequate protection order .
Note: If both parties believe that the hearing should be continued to allow time to negotiate the terms of an adequate protection order, the hearing may be continued by requesting the same at the time of the calendar roll call just prior to the hearing. Available continued dates: May 7, 2019, May 9, 2019 and May 16, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Thanh Van Nguyen Represented By Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Megan E Lees
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:13-01220 Bobinski v. Savastano
Docket 164
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
This matter is Off Calendar as Moot. See Order to Vacate Appearance entered May 1, 2019 [docket #171].
Debtor(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Defendant(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Plaintiff(s):
Richard Bobinski Represented By Crystal Bergstrom
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By
Karen S Naylor (TR)
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. Hrg. Held 8/19/14)
FR: 2-12-15; 8-20-15; 2-11-16; 8-4-16; 9-22-16; 11-3-16; 1-19-17; 2-16-17,
7-27-17, 1-17-18 (advanced from 1-18-18); 2-22-18; 9-6-18; 2-17-19; 3-12-19
Docket 107
- NONE LISTED -
February 12, 2015
Continue post-confirmation status conference to August 20, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by August 6, 2015. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
August 20, 2015
Continue post-confirmation status conference to February 11, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by January 28, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
February 11, 2016
10:30 AM
Continue post-confirmation status conference to August 4, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by July 21, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
August 4, 2016
Updated status report not filed. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100.00 against Debtor's counsel for failure to timely file an updated status report.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
September 22, 2016
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100.00 against Debtor's counsel for failure to timely file an updated status report or to file a motion to dismiss the case.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
January 19, 2017
Updated postconfirmation status report has not been filed. Since August, 2016, Debtor has failed to timely file postconfirmation status reports. See tentative ruling comments for matter #31 on today's calendar.
Take matter off calendar if the case is dismissed.
February 16, 2017
Continue Post Confirmation Status Conference to July 27, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.;
10:30 AM
updated status report must be filed by July 13, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
July 27, 2017
Continue Post Confirmation Status Conference to January 18, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 4, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
January 17, 2018
Debtor's counsel to appear and advise the court of the status of the 2nd distribution to class 6(b) shortfall of $2823.14. Has this shortfall been paid? If not, when will it be paid?
February 22, 2018
Continue status conference to September 6, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 23, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
September 6, 2018
10:30 AM
Continue Post Confirmation Status Conference to February 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 24, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 12, 2019
Continued to May 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. An updated status report is due April 23, 2019 unless a final decree has been entered by such date. (XX)
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
May 7, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of pending unopposed motion for final decree.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Elizabeth Blackman Represented By Bert Briones
10:30 AM
Docket 87
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Deny motion due to insufficient grounds stated therefor. Basis for tentative ruling:
Debtor was terminated from his job on September 28, 2018 and was offered severence of $8,110 but refused the same because he wanted to reserve his rights to assert a worker's comp claim against the company -- but notably has not amended his schedules to add such a claim. The severence could have been used toward his plan payments.
On February 12, 2019, Debtor obtained new employment but quit after only 14 days on the job based on "rumors" that he would be let go.
Just two weeks after quitting his last job, he immediately filed the instant motion for a hardship discharge. Debtor states that "due to his age" of 60 it is extremely hard to find a job, yet he did obtain a job at age 59 as recently as February 2019.
The court agrees with the objections stated by the chapter 13 trustee and incorporates them by reference herein.
The circumstances do not warrant or support a finding of a basis for undue hardship,.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Nguyen D. Uong Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 4-4-19
Docket 167
- NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Continue hearing to May 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Movant to correct service issue: Notice of the motion does not comply with LBR 9013-1(f) which requires notice of the deadline for the responding party to file an opposition. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Movant accepts the tentative ruling.
May 7, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
10:30 AM
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 111
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant allowance of the fees and expenses requested.
Special note: as there is no evidence that there are funds in the estate to pay the claim, an award is not being made at this time.
Note: If Applicant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Bryson N Nazareno Represented By Edward A Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 52
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
[The matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted before the hearing].
Debtor(s):
Michelle Renee Gillespie Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 26
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Grant the motion to extend through June 8, 2019, 60 days after the initial deadline of April 8, 2019.
Overrule Debtors' Objections Basis for Tentative Ruling
The motion is timely and states sufficient cause. The party in interest, Jacquelyn Mitchell was not listed as a creditor on Debtors' mailing list, albeit because Debtors presumably were unaware that she held or asserted a claim against them. Still, the unrefuted fact is that the party in interest, Mitchell, only learned of the bankruptcy one week before the deadline for filing an adversary for nondischargeability or to object to Debtors' discharge.
The critical circumstance is when Mitchell learned of the bankruptcy, not her attorneys.
The court is persuaded that one week is not sufficient time to determine if a discharge action should be filed.
An investigation regarding a debtor's financial affairs may be relevant to a possible discharge action under Section 727(a). One week to do so is not even
10:30 AM
sufficient to set a 2004 examination. The case cited by Debtors, In re Aloia does not support denying the Motion. In Aloia, the creditors a) had notice of the bankruptcy case and the discharge objections deadline in time to attend multiple 341a meetings and b) were actually granted an extension of time over the debtor's objections. None of the other cases cited are persuasive because none involved the circumstances present here -- potential claimant learns of the bankruptcy case one week prior to the deadline to file an objection.
Creditors are not required to rely on the inquiry, or lack thereof, of the chapter 7 trustee in deciding whether or not to investigate discharge issues.
Debtors' argument re 727(d) re revocation of discharge is also unpersuasive as a basis for denying the Motion.
The court believes that 60 days from the date of the original deadline is sufficient -- Movant has already had more than 30 days from the date she first learned of the bankruptcy (i.e., approximately April 1, 2019).
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 385
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral
2:00 PM
written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
Defend
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
2:00 PM
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 389
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 95
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 340
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 344
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 327
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 342
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 346
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 329
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander
2:00 PM
R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 311
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 319
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 298
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 308
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 312
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 68
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 320
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
Docket 328
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
[Debtor: SunCal Bickford Ranch, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 77
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 308
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 312
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 69
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 594
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 601
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
[Debtor: SunCal Marblehead, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 105
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
Docket 498
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
Docket 502
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
[Debtor: SunCal Heartland, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 99
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 486
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 490
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
[Debtor: SunCal Northlake, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 98
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 486
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 490
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
[Debtor: LBL-SunCal Oak Valley, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 98
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
Docket 490
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
Docket 494
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez
2:00 PM
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
[Debtor: Delta Coves Venture LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18
Docket 100
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01042 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
FR: 5-17-18; 11-15-18; 3-21-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 9/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Enered 3/13/2019 (XX) - td (3/13/2019)
May 17, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Sept. 20, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: n/a
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 15, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Nov. 1, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling
9:30 AM
order consistent with the same.
November 15, 2018
Continue pre-trial conference to January 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by January 10, 2019.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Nationwide Life and Annuity Pro Se Nationwide Life Insurance Company Pro Se Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Mark Ziebold Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
9:30 AM
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01031 Bral v. Samini et al
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 7/16/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/19/2019 (XX) - td (4/19/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
Samini Scheinberg, APC Pro Se
Matthew Hoesly Pro Se
Babak Samini Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By
Gary A Pemberton
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01095 Albert-Sheridan v. Coast Huntington Business Centers et al
FR: 11-15-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 6/6/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 4/5/2019 (XX) - td (4/5/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to January 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a timely and fully completed joint status report that addresses all relevant issues, including without limitation, status of service of summons and complaint on defendants Icon Owner Pool 1 and LA Business Parks LLC*, satisfaction of meet and confer requirements, discovery needs, etc (see joint status report form for additional details and disclosures). A joint status report must be filed no later than January 17, 2019. (XX)
9:30 AM
As Plaintiff asserts actions against her or her property in violation of her automatic stay, the trustee has no standing. Even if he did, he has abandoned it to Plaintiff. Further, as bankruptcy law (11 U.S.C. 362(a)) is implicated the matter must be adjudicated in this court.
*Defendant Coast Huntington Business Centers has filed a motion to dismiss which is set for hearing on today's 10:30 a.m. calendar and is unopposed.
The tentative ruling is to grant the motion to dismiss as to such defendant. [See Calendar #45]
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
January 31, 2019
In light of the unilateral status report filed by defendant Icon, this status conference shall be continued to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. and an updated joint status report must be filed by February 26, 2019. The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not be Dismissed Due to Failure to Prosecute ("OSC"), which OSC shall also be set for hearing on March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard Coast Huntington Business Centers Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
In light of the criminal matter in Case No. 6:19-239 pending before the District Court for the District of South Carolina, Greenville Division, and the receivership order entered in that case on April 12, 2019 which directly affects FIP, LLC, this involuntary petition is dismissed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 305(a).
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
FIP, LLC Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 93
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Angel Patricio Monico Represented By James A Hayes Jr
Joint Debtor(s):
Margara Elizabeth Monico Represented By James A Hayes Jr
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By
Austin P Nagel
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
JAY JAMSHHASB VS.
DEBTOR FR: 4-11-19
Docket 69
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue hearing to May 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to correct defective service -- Debtor was not served per LBR 4001-1(c)(1)(C)(i). Serivce to Debtor's attorney only is insufficient. (XX)
Tentative ruling for 5/9/19 hearing: Grant the limited relief requested in the Motion, i.e. determination of marital status only (Motion at p. 6).
Note: If Movant and Trustee accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
May 9, 2019
Service issue corrected. Grant the limited relief requested in the Motion, i.e. determination of marital status only
10:00 AM
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Maryam Teimoori Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Movant(s):
Jay Jamshhasb Represented By Manfredo E Lespier
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood
10:00 AM
PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS.
DEBTORS FR: 4-4-19
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
April 4, 2019
Continue hearing to May 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to file complete declaration in support of the Motion by or before April 18, 2019. (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The Motion is missing pages 8-11 of Form 4001.1.RFS.RP.Motion, including testimony regarding the number missed postpetition/postconfirmation payments, authentication of Exhibit 3, and the declaration signature page.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Mario P. Guerrero Represented By Gary S Saunders
Joint Debtor(s):
Niza B. Guerrero Represented By Gary S Saunders
Movant(s):
Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
PACIFIC WESTERN BANK VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 26
CONTINUED: Order RE Stipulation for Order Continuing Hearing on Motion for Relief from Stay to 5/16/2019 at 10:00 a.m. Entered 4/26/19
(XX) - (liz)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Movant(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
DEBTOR
Docket 28
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation re RFS SIGNED 5/9/19 -- eas
Debtor(s):
Donna Lee Lawler Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Elizon Master Participation Trust I, Represented By
Erin M McCartney
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Bachir Bacha Represented By
Walter Scott
Movant(s):
ADVANTAGE FUNDING Represented By
Raffi Khatchadourian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
GEORGIOS RIGAS, TRUSTEE OF THE GEORGIOS RIGAS FAMILY TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2994
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mario Alberto Sanchez Represented By Randy Alexander
Joint Debtor(s):
Josefina Sanchez Represented By Randy Alexander
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Georgios Rigas Represented By Theresa A Jones
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:13-01220 Bobinski v. Savastano
Docket 161
OFF CALENDAR: Order to Vacate Order for Appearance and Examination of Luis Savastano Entered 5/1/2019 - td (5/1/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Defendant(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Plaintiff(s):
Richard Bobinski Represented By Crystal Bergstrom
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By
Karen S Naylor (TR)
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Out of an abundance of caution and in order to save the time and expenses of an evidentiary hearing, the court will grant the motion to quash and require that the complaint be served by certified mail on or before May 23, 2019 and that a responsive pleading be filed by defendants no later than June 20, 2019. The request to dismiss the adversary is denied.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Pro Se
Kaufman Related Mamagement Pro Se
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
FR: 4-11-19
Docket 4
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 9, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 9, 2019
Status conference continued to August 1, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by July 16, 2019. (XX)
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
10:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Pro Se
Kaufman Related Mamagement Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
[JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 84
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
NuVal EMS, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Elyza P Eshaghi
10:30 AM
[SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
NuVal EMS, Inc. Represented By Thomas J Polis
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Leonard M Shulman Elyza P Eshaghi
10:30 AM
[JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 137
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jason H Hong Represented By
Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 136
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jason H Hong Represented By
Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 134
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant motion subject to 1) overbid and 2) trustee providing proof the dismissal of the state court actions relating to the 2 lis pendens on the title report.
If there are overbids, the sale shall take place outside the courtroom
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
(C) Subject to Overbid; and (D) For Determination of Good Faith Purchaser Under 11 U.S.C. Section 363(M)
Docket 74
NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant motion subject to overbid.
If there are overbids, the sale shall take place outside the courtroom
Debtor(s):
Maryam Teimoori Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01172 Pacific Western Bank v. Gaglio et al
Docket 12
CONTINUED: Order RE Stipulation for Order Continuing Hearing RE Motion to Stay Proceedings to 5/16/2019 at 10:30 a.m. Entered 4/26/19
(XX) - (liz)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Defendant(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Plaintiff(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 151
- NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 25
- NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Luis Miguel Cruz Rodriguez Represented By Mike Sethi
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline Cruz Represented By Mike Sethi
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Deny motion as moot.
Declaration filed by Debtors' counsel indicates that he has returned the $1200 in fees as well as the filing fee. Per the 2016 statement, no further fees are due.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Luis Miguel Cruz Rodriguez Represented By Mike Sethi
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline Cruz Represented By Mike Sethi
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 727(a)(8)
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
May 9, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Artemisa Stush Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
Docket 61
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Movant(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Evan Rothman
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 4-18-19
Docket 67
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Kathleen J McCarthy
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 7-27-17; 9-21-17, 4-12-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Approving Woodlawn Colonial, L.P.'s Motion to Stay Adversary Proceeding Until Completion of Appellate Review of the Bankruptcy Court Order Approving Sale of Rights to State Court Appeal Entered 1/24/18 - td (1/24/2018)
July 27, 2017
No tentative ruling -- the disposition of the status conference will depend upon the outcome of Plaintiff's motion for stay of the adversary proceeding, which set on today's 10:30am calendar.
September 21, 2017
Impose sanctions against counsel for Plaintiff in the amount of $100 for failure to file joint status report as required by LBR 7016-1.
Discovery Cut-off Date: Jan. 18, 2018
Deadline to File Pretrial Motions: Feb. 1, 2018
Reserved hearing date re Pretrial Motions: Mar. 8, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (xx) Pretrial Conference: Apr. 12, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Pretrial Stipulation Mar. 29, 2018
2:00 PM
Special Note: Defendant's counterclaim may be moot in light of the sale of the truck by the Trustee.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
July 19, 2018
In light of pending appeal, continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., updated status report must be filed by September 13, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 29, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
March 21, 2019
Continue status conference to May 9, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; updated status report not
2:00 PM
required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at the March 21, 2019 status conference are not required.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
FR: 12-20-18; 1-29-19; 3-13-19; 4-24-19
Docket 623
OFF CALENDAR: Per Confirmation Hearing Held 4/30/2019 - td (5/9/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
(RE: 2017 KIA Sorento Utility 4D SX Limited 2WD - $20,932.33) (TA CASE)
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard Alvarez Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Alexandra Jane Alvarez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ronald Lyle Pearce Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
$11,355.00)
[SC CASE]
Docket 23
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Rescission of Reaffirmation Agreement filed 5/15/2019 - nb/td (5/9/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Leland White Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
$12,282.20)
[SC CASE]
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jack D. Parisi Represented By
Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robin C. Orcholski Represented By Christine A Kingston
Joint Debtor(s):
Christine E. Orcholski Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bach Tuyet Tran Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daniel Hoksiang Phang Represented By Maria W Tam
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
$4,785.98)
[SC CASE]
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bruce Walter Gardner Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Kathy Denise Gardner Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Julio Antonio Ponce Orbe Represented By Bryn C Deb
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 17
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Julio Antonio Ponce Orbe Represented By Bryn C Deb
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Franz B. Kamovski Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Christina Costa Represented By Todd J Roberts
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 6
- NONE LISTED -
May 15, 2019
Debtors to address the following issues:
The identification of utility accounts that were in default as of the petition date and the amount of such default. The Motion vaguely refers to some defaults but without specificity.
Why the adequate protection for utility accounts that are current should be the same as those that were in default as of the petition date.
Debtor(s):
Mesko Restaurant Group II, Inc., a Represented By
Richard A Marshack David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 7
- NONE LISTED -
May 15, 2019
If notice is proper, grant motion.
Debtor(s):
Mesko Restaurant Group II, Inc., a Represented By
Richard A Marshack David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
May 15, 2019
Debtors to address the following issues:
Why there is no list of the employees for which Debtors seek to pay prepetition wages along with the amount to be paid to each. Presumably, no single employee will receive more than $12,850.00, the maximum priority amount allowed under 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(4)(A) for wages, salaries, commissions, vacation, severance and sick leave pay.
The Motion mentions both 507(a)(4)(A) AND 507(a)(5), the latter of which covers contributions to an employee benefit plan. Are Debtors seeking permission to pay contributions to an employee benefit plan?
In addition to paying priority payroll-related obligations under 507(a)(4) [and 507(a)(5)], on page 8 of the Motion, Debtors seek permission to pay "other miscellaneous business expenses in its ordinary course of business." What specific business expenses and how do they fall under 507(a)?
2. Total, in dollar amount, of the prepetition wage obligations to be paid.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Mesko Restaurant Group II, Inc., a Represented By
Richard A Marshack David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
May 15, 2019
Debtor only lists three secured creditors, Bank of Hope, American Express and Sysco. Are there any PACA-type creditors that might assert liens on produce inventory?
Debtor(s):
Mesko Restaurant Group II, Inc., a Represented By
Richard A Marshack David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
May 15, 2019
Debtors to address the following issues:
Is the security interest to be extended re the postpetition financing non- priming? That is, junior to the prepetition liens of Bank of Hope, American Express, Sysco and any PACA liens?
What happens if there is no sale 13 weeks after the Effective Date?
Debtor(s):
Mesko Restaurant Group II, Inc., a Represented By
Richard A Marshack David Wood
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01187 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
U.S.C. §§548(a)(1)(B) and 550; To preserve avoided transfers pursuant to 11
U.S.C. §552; and (8) For injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §105
(Another Summons Issued 1/31/19) FR: 1-31-19; 4-18-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against attorney for Plaintiff for failing to timely file a status report. In addition, no proof of service has been filed showing proper service to defendants. Continue hearing to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. Court to issue OSC re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute which will be heard on the same date/time as the continued hearing.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
April 18, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue hearing to May 16, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 2, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report required by August 1, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing is not required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
9:30 AM
Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01019 Marshack v. Bernards Bros. Inc., a California corporation
FR: 4-12-18; 6-7-18; 7-27-18; 8-3-18; 11-1-18
(Advanced from 6-14-18)
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
April 12, 2018
Continue status conference to June 14, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on the pending motion to compel arbitration. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
November 1, 2018
Plaintiff to advise the court re the status of the arbitration matter. If more time is needed, this hearing may be continued to December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (updated status report to be filed by December 6, 2018) by filing a stipulation or requesting a continuance during the roll call on the day of the hearing.
May 16, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report required by August 1, 2019.
Note: Appearances at this hearing is not required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
Debtor(s):
Koller Coatings Corporation Represented By Arash Shirdel
Defendant(s):
Bernards Bros. Inc., a California Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Scott A Kron
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Scott A Kron
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01160 Schlissel v. Educational Credit Management Corporation
FR: 5-31-18; 12-20-18; 3-7-19; 3-19-19
Docket 16
OFF CALENDAR: Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation for Entry of Judgment Entered 2/28/2019 - td (2/28/2019)
May 31, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 1, 2018 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation:Nov. 16, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Dec. 6, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Aileen Merrill Schlissel Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Educational Credit Management Represented By
9:30 AM
Scott A Schiff
Plaintiff(s):
Aileen Schlissel Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01032 Ismodes, Sr v. Pariscari
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff's counsel must appear and advise the court re the legal basis for Debtor's standing to prosecute this action for fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. as such claims are property the estate over which the chapter 7 trustee has exclusive control over. The court is not aware of any abandonment of such claims by the chapter 7 trustee. Importantly, this is not simply an objection to claim.
If Plaintiff's counsel can satisfactorily explain standing, then the following schedule will apply:
Deadline to complete discovery: Oct. 1, 2019
Deadline to attend mediation: Nov. 1, 2019 Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation: Dec. 5, 2019
Pretrial conference: Dec. 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Note: Appearances at this status conference are required.
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By
9:30 AM
Anerio V Altman
Defendant(s):
Brian Pariscari Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 86
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 4/23/2019 - td (4/23/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eugene Martin Huapaya Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Movant(s):
Nissan Motor Acceptance Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:00 AM
PACIFIC WESTERN BANK VS.
DEBTORS FR:5/9/19
Docket 26
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant relief for the limited purpose of permitting Movant to seek recovery of postpetition wages of Debtors, which wages are not property of the chapter 7 estate. Deny motion as to any claim asserting Debtors' interest in property other than postpetition wages as, if there are any such interests they are property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 USC 541(a) and Movant has not standing to seek recovery of estate property absent abandonment under Section 554.
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver; grant relief requested in request #s 7 and 8 (recordation of order required);grant relief #10; deny relief set forth in request # 11.
This court does not grant in rem relief in perpetuity as provided for in request # 11.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Ritual Hot Yoga LLC Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
VBAS Properties, Inc Represented By
Michael R Asatourian
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
ORCHARD TRUST #9945, SOUTHLAND HOMES REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENT LLC AS TRUSTEE
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver; grant relief requested in request #s 7 and 8 (recordation of order required); deny relief set forth in request #11.
This court does not grant in rem relief in perpetuity as provided for in request # 11.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Elizabeth Le Nguyen Tran Pro Se
Movant(s):
Orchard Trust #9945, Southland Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Barry L O'Connor
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
THE GIBBONS FAMILY TRUST, COLIN GIBBONS AND LEE M. GUSTIN- GIBBONS AS CO-TRUSTEES
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Victor Ramon Carlos Represented By Christine A Kingston
Movant(s):
The Gibbons Family Trust, Colin Represented By
Barry L O'Connor
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver; deny all other relief requested due to insufficient grounds stated therefor.
Special Note: The court does not grant prospective or in rem relief without strong evidence of bad faith such as multiple filings or transfers of interest in the subject property. The court rarely, if ever, grants in rem relief in perpetuity as set forth in relief request #11.
Re Debtors' Response:
Any defenses Debtors' wish to raise to the unlawful detainer action must be presented in the state court unlawful detainer case, not this court;
Any counterclaim Debtors' assert against Ning Wang is property of the bankruptcy estate and can only be pursued by the chapter 7 trustee unless the trustee abandons the claim back to Debtors, which she has not done.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Harvey A Fleisher Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Angela C Fleisher Pro Se
Movant(s):
Ning Wang Represented By
Michael C OYoung
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019 [TENTATIVE RULING MODIFIED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING]
Grant motion on the following conditions: a) stay is extended through October 24, 2019 only; b) stay extended only so long as Debtors remain postpetition current with i) both mortgage payments on the residential real property and ii) plan payments. If Debtor fails to stay current with mortgages and plan payments, the court will terminate extension of the stay upon the filing of a declaration by either Polycomp Trust or US Bank or the chapter 13 trustee. Upon the filing of any such declaration re nonpayment, Debtor shall have 10 days from the date of the filing of the declaration to provide proof of payment. Absent such proof, the court will thereafter enter an order terminating the extension of the stay.
Basis for Modified Tentative Ruling:
-- The court has re-reviewed the pleadings/docket in this case as well as the prior chapter 13 case and has determined that an indefinite extension of the stay is not warranted as it appears Debtors are buying time to accomplish a sale of the property that was not possible in the prior chapter 13 case. Debtors will not be permitted to park themselves in a chapter 13 without making either current mortgage payments or plan payments while they attempt to sell the property.
-- Though the court has reviewed the late-filed opposition filed by Polycomp Trust (due May 2, 2019, filed May 13, 2019), counsel for Polycomp Trust will not be permitted to present oral argument at the hearing due to the tardiness of the opposition.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Richard Price Alexander Represented By Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Donna Jean Alexander Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Richard Price Alexander Represented By Christopher J Langley
Donna Jean Alexander Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 22
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Cody A Ranslem Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Nancy Spino Pro Se
Trustee(s):
James J Joseph (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[PAGTER AND PERRY ISAACSON, APLC, COUNSEL FOR THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 399
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Commercial Services Building Inc Represented By
Phillip B Greer
Trustee(s):
Karl T Anderson (TR) Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson Misty A Perry Isaacson Thomas J Polis
Robert M Dato
10:30 AM
Jason E Goldstein
10:30 AM
(2) Approving Buyer as Good-Faith Purchase Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 363(m); and (4) Approving Compromise of Controversy Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019
FR: 10-11-18; 11-8-18; 12-13-18; 2-7-19; 4-18-19
Docket 52
- NONE LISTED -
November 8, 2018
Comments re the Motion/Opposition
According to the claims register, proofs of claim have been filed in the amount of approximately $33,000. Presumably, the current bid of $63,000 would be sufficient to pay such claims 100% with interest.
The court presumes claims could be paid 100% with interest but such is not clear as the trustee has not indicated what the amount of administrative expenses would be. Trustee needs to provide this information.
The court is open to granting the Motion (subject to overbid at the hearing) unless Debtors pay all claims with interest at the offered rate of 5% as well as all administrative expenses, in full within 15 days of the hearing date, at which time the claim against Bank of American will be deemed abandoned to Debtors.
If Debtors are unable to pay all claims and adminstrative expenses in full in indicated above, then the sale to Bank of America may be immediately
10:30 AM
consummated in the amount of $63,000.
The court notes that on Nov. 5, 2018, Debtors filed a skeletal motion to convert to chapter 11 without providing any evidence of an ability to fund a chapter 11 plan. Clearly, it's in the best interest of creditors of the estate to be paid in full immediately than to wait until a chapter 11 plan is confirmed and consummated.
April 18, 2019
Grant the motion, subject to overbid. The sale will take place outside the courtroom.
Overrule Debtors' objection to the sale.
May 16, 2019
Trustee to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
James E. Case Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura M. Case Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
Docket 65
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Denyy motion due to lack of evidence of ability of Debtors to fund a viable chapter 13 plan.
Debtor(s):
James E. Case Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura M. Case Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
Docket 17
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant motion
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Tracy Mark Longest Represented By Rachelle Shakoori
Joint Debtor(s):
Macy Maddelena Collins Represented By Rachelle Shakoori
Trustee(s):
David L Hahn (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 250
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified
Debtor(s):
Aviir, Inc. Represented By
Stephen T O'Neill
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson Todd C. Ringstad
Callahan & Blaine, APLC Raphael Cung
10:30 AM
[CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC, ATTORNEY FOR KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 229
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified
Debtor(s):
Aviir, Inc. Represented By
Stephen T O'Neill
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson Todd C. Ringstad
Callahan & Blaine, APLC Raphael Cung
10:30 AM
[RINGSTAD & SANDERS LLP, ATTORNEY FOR KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 245
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified
Debtor(s):
Aviir, Inc. Represented By
Stephen T O'Neill
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson Todd C. Ringstad
Callahan & Blaine, APLC Raphael Cung
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY LLP, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 246
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified
Debtor(s):
Aviir, Inc. Represented By
Stephen T O'Neill
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson Todd C. Ringstad
Callahan & Blaine, APLC Raphael Cung
10:30 AM
Docket 165
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 5/30/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 5/1/2019 (XX) - td (5/1/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 169
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 5/30/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 5/1/2019 (XX) - td (5/1/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(Set at Ch 11 Plan hrg. held 11-15-18)
Docket 93
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion in Chapter 11 Case for the Entry of an Order Closing Case on Interim Basis Entered 1/7/2019 - td (1/9/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gregory A Moore Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
Joint Debtor(s):
Edith A Moore Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Claim #3 | Calvary SPV I | $1,926.81 |
Claim #6 | Resurgent Capital Services | $1,229.27 |
Claim #7 | Pinnacle Credit Services | $752.66 |
Claim #8 | Alliance Environmental Group | $4,692.10 |
Claim #9 | Universal Carpet | $2,340.00 |
Docket 214 | ||
Courtroom Deputy: - NONE LISTED - |
May 16, 2019
Overrule Objections without prejudice due to procedural deficiencies. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The court overrules all objections for the reasons stated in the Comments filed the chapter 7 trustee which are well-taken and incorporated by reference herein, to wit: noncompliance wtih FRBP 3007(d) and (e), noncompliance with LBR 3007-1(c)(2), 3007-1(c)(4)(C), failure to address possibility of surplus case which would allow tardily filed claims to be paid, etc.
Because of the numerous procedural/evidentiary deficiencies, the court need not address the substance of certain objections, such as Claims 3, 6, and 7.
10:30 AM
The court notes that the proof of service re Universal Carpet includes a zip code different from that in the proof of claim.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
(Set at Ch 11 Plan hrg. held 11-15-18)
Docket 100
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to Sept. 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 29, 2019.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee; it is Debtor's responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Tri-Star Construction and Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
FR: 4-18-18
Docket 66
CONTINUED: Order Approving Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Motion
to Determine Fees, Expenses and Charges Claimed by Premier Home Solutions, Inc. Entered 5/15/19 (liz) (5/15/2019)
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01172 Pacific Western Bank v. Gaglio et al
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Deny motion to stay proceedings.
There is no legitimate reason why the nondischargeability complaint cannot proceed under 523(a)(6) and 727. As noted in connection with the motion for relief from stay, Movant has no standing to assert control over any bankruptcy estate property interests.
Though not framed as such, the state court action is in the nature of a fraudulent transfer action, i.e., that Defendants allegedly transferred the dairy business and its assets to their son in order to avoid enforcement of Movant's judgment against the same.
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Defendant(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond
10:30 AM
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Plaintiff(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 102
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 104
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 108
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on UST's motion to dismiss case.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Debtor's counsel will need to address the following issues:
The projected adequate protection payments listed on Exhibit A requires explanation:
The projection provides for monthly adequate protection payments for all three properties of only $1700, yet the debt service on the Norwalk property alone is $3300 per month (1st and 2nd).
The artificially low adequate protection payments skews the projections -- in reality, Debtor will be operating at a significant deficit for all 6 months, especially after property taxes, insurance, maintenance and management fees are added.
It is not clear from the projections whether Debtor is paying $100 in management fees per month for one, two or all three properties. Who is the property manager?
The projections include rent for the Burchfield property of $1300 but there is no evidence that Debtor has procured a tenant for that property.
The monthly operating report for March shows no income and no
10:30 AM
expenses for any property.
Debtor does not plan to file a cash collateral motion. So, how will the projected expenses for the properties be paid?
Claims Bar Date: July 30, 2019 (notice to creditors by 5/30/19; declaration re non-opp must be filed by 5/23)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl St.: Aug. 1, 2019
Continued status conference: July 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report
must be filed by July 9. 2019.
Special Note: The continued chapter 11 status conference is being continued less than 60 days to allow the court to monitor the progress of this case, including a review of the April and May MORs.
Note: Appearance at this status conference is required.
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on UST's motion to dismiss case.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
SPN IP LLC Represented By
Christopher J Langley
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01095 Albert-Sheridan v. Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Parks, LLC
Docket 35
SPECIAL NOTE: Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice filed 5/6/2019 - td (5/14/2019)
May 16, 2019
The court is inclined to deny the motion as moot in light of Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 41
This adversary was commenced with the filing of the Complaint on May 29, 2018. Defendant filed its answer on June 29, 2019 [docket #6]. The instant motion for summary judgment ("Motion") was filed on March 8, 2019 [docket #35] and was properly served upon Plaintiff. Pursuant to LBR 7056-1, a responsive pleading had to be filed within 21 days of today's hearing or April 25, 2019.
Plaintiff did not file a responsive pleading by April 25, 2019. Instead, on May 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed Notice of [Voluntary] Dismissal Without Prejudice [docket # 48] ("Dismissal Notice"). Though Plaintiff cited no rule or other legal authority in the Dismissal Notice, the applicable rule is Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41, which applies to bankruptcy adversary proceedings pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7041.
Voluntary Dismissal of Action Without Court Order
2:00 PM
Rule 41 permits a plaintiff the right to voluntarily dismiss an action without court order or consent of the defendant under certain circumstances. Specifically Rule 41(a)(1)(i) provides that plaintiff "dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment". (emphasis added)
Here, because Plaintiff filed the notice of dismissal after both the filing of an answer and a motion for summary judgment, the Dismissal Notice is ineffective under Rule 41(a)(1).
Voluntary Dismissal of Action With Court Order
Rule 41(a)(2) provides that "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper."
The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the District Court, and its order will not be reversed unless the District Court has abused its discretion." Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Under FRCP 41(a)(2), "If a notice of summary judgment has been filed, the court can grant a dismissal at its discretion." Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988). "When a plaintiff seeks to avoid an adverse decision on a motion for summary judgment, dismissal is inappropriate." LeFer
v. Murry, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1186 (D. Mont. 2013)(citations omitted).
"In ruling on a motion for voluntary dismissal, the District Court must consider whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal... Plain legal prejudice, however, does not result simply when defendant faces the prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some tactical advantage." Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Plain legal prejudice "means ‘prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument." Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Ninth Circuit plainly stated the standard for the application of Rule
2:00 PM
41(a)(2) as follows:
"A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2)4 unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir.1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir.1982).
We have previously held that 'legal prejudice' means 'prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.' Westlands, 100 F.3d at
97. In so holding, we also explained that '[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or because “the threat of future litigation ... causes uncertainty' does not result in plain legal prejudice. Id. at 96–97. Also, plain legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal. Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145." 263 F.3d at 976.
Applying the foregoing standard to the circumstances here, the court can discern no plain legal prejudice that would be suffered by Defendant by the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. The fact that Defendant could face a second lawsuit or incur fees in connection therewith is insufficient.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
1:30 PM
(TA CASE)
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alain Azoulay Represented By Dana M Douglas
Movant(s):
Alain Azoulay Represented By Dana M Douglas Dana M Douglas Dana M Douglas Dana M Douglas Dana M Douglas Dana M Douglas
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 3
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cheryl Wolter Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Enterd 4/23/2019 - td (5/3/2019)
Debtor(s):
Lan Anh Hoang Represented By Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Katherine Elizabeth Gaskill Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 4/08/2019 - td (4/8/2019)
Debtor(s):
Elizabeth Ann Durand Represented By Derik N Lewis
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 4/10/2019 - td (4/10/2019)
Debtor(s):
Gloria Azarraga Burns Represented By Seema N Sood
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Antonio Munos Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Joint Debtor(s):
Cinthia Renee Munos Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 5
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
James Ray Peterson Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Tamara Salow Represented By Christopher P Walker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mario Jonathan Saldivar Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Braddock Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Fernando Serrano Represented By Lionel E Giron
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Chapter 13 Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 3/25/2019 - td (5/3/2019)
Debtor(s):
Juliette Laura Smith Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Frankie Manuel Gonzales Jr. Represented By David Lozano
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline Gonzales Represented By David Lozano
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nien T Fraser Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion to Chapter 7 Filed 3/13/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (3/14/2019)
Debtor(s):
Hilda Camarena Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 3/18/2019 - td (5/2/2019)
Debtor(s):
Nicole Nolan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 20
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Fernando Contreras Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion to Chapter 7 Filed 3/2/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (5/2/2019)
Debtor(s):
Alejandro M. Martinez Represented By Kevin Tang
Joint Debtor(s):
Chalea R. Woods Represented By Kevin Tang
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 3/7/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (3/8/2019)
Debtor(s):
Criss Tina Lenhart Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sima Hakami Represented By Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 3/11/2019 - td (3/11/2019)
Debtor(s):
Jessica Trof Kodrich Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 3/11/2019 - td (3/11/2019)
Debtor(s):
Maria Elidia Cerda Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 3/11/2019 - td (3/11/2019)
Debtor(s):
Lydia Cerda Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Maria Faith Burks Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 21
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Christine Martinez Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 3/1/2019 - td (5/2/2019)
Debtor(s):
Quynh Thuy Lu Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 24
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 5/21/2019 - td (5/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Fidelina Ochoa Represented By Sunjay Bhatia
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 27
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 with Restrictions [11 U.S.C. §§109(g) (2) and 1307(b) Entered 4/29/2019 - td (5/2/2019)
Debtor(s):
Gilbert D Garcia Represented By Dale F Hardeman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Emil Peter Joros Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 2/25/2019 - td (5/2/2019)
Debtor(s):
Juan Mendoza Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Manuel C. Adame Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 20
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Adrian Elizarraras Represented By David R Chase
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Telephonic Hearing
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Herminigilda Garcia Manalo Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Loren Tramontano Represented By Paul Y Lee
Joint Debtor(s):
Monique Chevalier Represented By Paul Y Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ryan Phillip Jones Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandy Gee Yung Kim Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Viet Duc Bui Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard Thomas McPhee Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Pejman Pirmoradi Represented By Alon Darvish
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Donna Lee Lawler Represented By Peter Rasla
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kayleen R Hittesdorf Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 33
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William Raymond Harvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Joint Debtor(s):
Akram Naieharvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael P Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Joint Debtor(s):
Deborah J. Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 35
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
J. Guadalupe Zepeda Dimas Represented By James F Drake
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
FR: 3-27-18; 7-17-18; 9-25-18; 11-27-18; 1-22-19; 3-26-19
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 34
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Laurel Lee Linton Represented By Caroline S Kim
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 30
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19
Docket 28
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19
Docket 113
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Giuseppe Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Joint Debtor(s):
Heldia F. De Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19
Docket 51
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 1-22-19; 3-26-19; 4-23-19
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19
Docket 32
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Imelda Macedo Represented By
Rabin J Pournazarian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daryl John Parks Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Juanita Torres Represented By Michael E Hickey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joe Blake Represented By
Arlene M Tokarz
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 98
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nguyen D. Uong Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19
Docket 84
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nguyen D. Uong Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 45
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Chad G Spates Represented By James D Zhou
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19
Docket 141
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 70
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Christine Chi Kim Luu Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
ap-01094 and 8:17-ap-01092 on the Grounds the Same Were Filed Base Upon Falsified Evidence, filed by Debtor John Jean Bral
(Set at SC held 9-20-18 ; See Statement/Doc. #603) FR: 1-10-19; 3-19-19
Docket 219
OFF CALENDAR: Per Confirmation Hearing Held 4/30/2019 - td (5/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01036 Skipper v. US Department of Education
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Plaintiff needs to appear and explain why he has filed an identical complaint re nondischargeability of student loan debt as in adversary #18-0111. Neither complaint has been properly served on Defendant. The court is inclined to dismiss this adversary proceeding for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this status conference is required.
Debtor(s):
Rubin J Skipper Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Department of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Reuben J Skipper Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01143 Marshack v. Nguyen
FR: 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 3-21-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
October 11, 2018
Continue pretrial conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; joint pretriial stipulation due on November 29, 2018.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
December 6, 2018
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by January 10, 2019, (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
Continue Status Conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
9:30 AM
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 30, 2019
In light of pending settlement continue hearing one final time to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 8, 2019 if the settlement agreement has not been approved by such date.
Note: Appearances at this status conference are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
AA-TEK Machining, Inc. Represented By Tina H Trinh
Defendant(s):
Natalie Nguyen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Kelly Zinser
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
9:30 AM
Wesley H Avery Kelly Zinser
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01038 Naylor v. Advanced Innovative Recovery Technologies, Inc.
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference to October 10, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 3. 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by the Court by such date.
Note: Appearances at this status conference are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
William S. Stewart Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Advanced Innovative Recovery Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Barbara E. Stewart Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Karen Sue Naylor Represented By Christopher Minier
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01039 Chokshi v. Malhotra et al
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019 | |
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 7/30/19 |
Deadline to Attend Mediation: | 8/30/19 |
Pretrial Conference Date: | 10/3/19 at 9:30 a.m. |
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: | 9/19/19 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Raj Malhotra Represented By
Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Raj Malhotra Pro Se
Nayana Malhotra Pro Se
9:30 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Nayana Malhotra Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Plaintiff(s):
Manisha Chokshi Represented By Onyinye N Anyama Vithlani Dilip
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01035 SJO Investments, LLC v. Gilbert-Bonnaire
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019 | |
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 8/2/19 |
Deadline to Attend Mediation: | 9/13/19 |
Pretrial Conference Date: | 10/17/19 at 9:30 a.m. |
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: | 10/3/19 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Represented By
Andrew Edward Smyth
Defendant(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
SJO Investments, LLC Represented By Jon Alan Enochs
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01040 Lee v. Phong
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: New Status Conference Set For 7/11/2019 at 9:30 a.m. (xx) - td (4/15/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Lee Represented By Jason K Boss
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01037 Last Chance Funding, Inc. v. Mohan et al
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Continued to 10/17/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order on Stipulation to Continue Status Conference Entered 5/16/19 (XX) - (liz)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Narendra Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
Defendant(s):
Narendra Mohan Pro Se
Anshu Mohan Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Anshu Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
Plaintiff(s):
Last Chance Funding, Inc. Represented By Robert L Rentto
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
Docket 4
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
No response to the OSC has been filed. Dismiss adversary proceeding due to lack of prosecution.
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
FR: 4-4-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Another Summons Issued 4/8/2019. Status Conference Set for 7/11/2019 at 9:30 a.m. (xx) - td (4/8/2019)
April 4, 2019
Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service showing timely and proper service the summons and complaint on Defendant US Department of Education in accordance with Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(b)(4).
Continue status conference to May 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The court will issue and order to show cause why this adversary proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute -- a hearing on the order to show cause shall also be held on May 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
If Plaintiff has not properly served Defendant as of the date of the hearing , she must obtain another summons from the Clerk's Office and serve the same by or before April 18, 2019.
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 44
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
The parties are ordered to meet and confer re a possible resolution prior to the hearing. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing.
Available continued dates are June 13, 2019 and June 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Jose P. Hurtado Represented By Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 66
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Derrick Anthony Moreno Sr. Represented By Cynthia Grande
Joint Debtor(s):
Rose Estrada Moreno Represented By Cynthia Grande
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Represented By
Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
YUBA CITY PACIFIC ASSOCIATES VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 46
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant as to all causes of action in the state court action except deny as to breach of contract, negligence, constructive trust, fraudulent transfers and injunctive relief. Grant request for waiver of 4001(a) (3).
The excepted causes of action are either dischargeable (breach of contract, negligence, constructive trust) or are causes of action belonging to the bankruptcy estate (fraudulent transfer, injunctive relief). Notably, the deadline for filing objections to discharge or determination of dischargeability have not expired due to extension stipulations.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required if Movant accepts the tentative ruling. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Sean Pate Represented By
Anerio V Altman
Movant(s):
Yuba City Pacific Associates Represented By Aaron J Malo
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:00 AM
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS VS.
DEBTOR FR: 5-7-19
Docket 20
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion, filed 5/13/2019 - td (5/14/2019)
May 7, 2019
If Debtor is now current through April 2019, the court will grant a standard adequate protection order in favor of Movant. The parties are encouraged to discuss the terms of such an order prior to the hearing. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance of today's hearing at the time of the calendar roll call by the clerk prior to the hearing. Available continued dates are May 16, 2019, May 30, 2019 and June 13, 2019.
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST Represented By
Dane W Exnowski
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chirag Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
ACAR Leasing LTD d/b/a GM Represented By Jennifer H Wang
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Brian D. Thaler Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Movant(s):
Brian D. Thaler Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 08/11/05; 9-8-05; 12-15-06; 4-20-06; 10-12-06; 4-12-07; 10-18-07; 4-17-08;
10-16-08; 4-16-09; 10-15-09; 4-8-10; 4-7-11 (rescheduled from 4/6/12); 4-5-12;
4-4-13; 5-8-14; 5-7-15; 5-5-16; 5-4-17; 5-10-18; 5-24-18; 5-31-18
Docket 0
- NONE LISTED -
11/20/03
Continue hearing to January 22, 2004 at 10:30am. Counsel for Reorganized Debtor, Marc Cohen, was not served with the status conference notice re this hearing.
Updated status report due January 12, 2004.
1/22/04
Continue status conference to July 8, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report shall be filed by June 28,2004
If there are no outstanding U. S. Trustee issues, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
7/8/04
Continue status conference to December 9, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report shall be filed by November 29, 2004.
If there are no outstanding U. S. Trustee issues, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
10:30 AM
12/9/04
Continue status conference to July 14, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report shall be filed by July 5, 2005.
If there are no outstanding U. S. Trustee issues, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
7/14/05*
Continue status conference to December 15, 2005 at 10:30am; updated status report shall be filed by December 5, 2005.
Note: If there are no outstanding U. S. Trustee issues, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
*The court appreciates the detailed report submitted on behalf of the Reorganized Debtor.
12/15/05
If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, continue hearing to June 8, 2006, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. at the Santa Ana Courthouse; updated status report due April 6, 2006.
April 20, 2006
Continue status conference to October 12, 2006 at 1030 a.m. ; updated status report due October 2, 2006. Debtor to indicate in October status report whether the case is ready for the entry of a final decree.
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
October 12, 2006
Per the most recently filed status report, this matter appears to be progressing satisfactorily. Continue status conference to April 12, 2007 at 1030 a.m. ; updated status report due April 2, 2007.
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12, 2007
Continue status conference to October 18, 2007 at 1030 a.m. ; updated status report due October 4, 2007. The status report for the October 18 hearing should advise court why a final decree should not be entered and the case closed, as substantially consummated. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
October 18, 2007
Continue status conference to April 17, 2008 at 1030 a.m. ; updated status report due April 7, 2008. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
10:30 AM
April 17, 2008
Continue status conference to October 16, 2008 at 1030 a.m. ; updated status report due October 6, 2008.
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
October 16, 2008
Continue status conference to April 16, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ; updated status report due April 6, 2009. The April 6, 2009 status report should include only updated information and need not include a repetition of the history of the case. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
April 16, 2009
Continue status conference to October 15, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by October 5, 2009.
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
October 15, 2009
Continue status conference to April 8, 2010 at 1030 a.m. ; updated status report due March 25, 2010. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in full compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, including payments of quarterly fees, appearances at today's hearing are waived.
10:30 AM
April 8, 2010
Continue status conference to April 7, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. ; updated status report to be filed by March 28, 2011. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is excused.
April 7, 2011
Continue status conference to April 6, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. ; updated status report to be filed by March 23, 2012. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is excused.
April 5, 2012
Continue status conference to April 4, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. ; updated status report to be filed by March 21, 2013. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is excused.
May 2, 2013
Continue status conference to May 8, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. ; updated status report to be filed by April 24, 2014 (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is excused.
May 8, 2014
Continue status conference to May 7, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.; updated report to be filed by April 23, 2015.
Comments re Status Report:
10:30 AM
The current status report is essentially a "cut and paste" of the prior May 2, 2013 postconfirmation report. The court has previously requested that the Reorganized Debtor limit its report to updated activity in the case that has occurred since the prior status conference. Instead, the same report is continually filed. The court should not have to comb through repetitive reports line by line to determine the current status.
Sanctions will be imposed against counsel for the Reorganized Debtor in an amount of not less than $100 if the 2015 report is not limited to new information.
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required
May 7, 2015
Continue status conference to May 5, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report to be filed by April 21, 2016. (XX)
May 5, 2016
Continue status conference to May 4, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report to be filed by April 20, 2017. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
May 4, 2017
Continue status conference to May 10, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report to be filed by April 26, 2018 (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
10:30 AM
May 31, 2018
Continue status conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report to be filed by May 16, 2019 (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
May 30, 2019
Continue status conference to May 21, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report to be filed by May 7, 2020
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
California Power Exchange Corp Represented By
Joseph A Eisenberg Philip S Warden Ashleigh A Danker Alan Z Yudkowsky Marc S Cohen
Julie A Belezzuoli Alicia Clough
10:30 AM
(Set Per Order Entered 2/10/2016)
FR: 3-29-16; 9-15-16; 9-22-16; 11-10-16; 5-11-17; 11-9-17; 5-24-18; 5-31-18;
11-15-18
Docket 0
- NONE LISTED -
March 29, 2016
Continue status conference to September 15, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by September 1, 2016. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
September 22, 2016
Trustee to appear and advise the court regarding the status of the IRS' response. Waiting three years for a response is unprecedented. How many more years is the Trustee prepared to wait?
November 10, 2016
As of the posting of this tentative ruling (11/9/16 at approx. 3:15 p.m.), no amended proof of claim had been filed by the IRS.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
May 11, 2017
10:30 AM
Continue status conference to November 9, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by October 26, 2017. (XX)
Special Note: The updated report should only cover developments since today's hearing -- a summary of the history of the case is not required.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
November 9, 2017
Continue status conference to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by May 10, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
May 31, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018 [UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING]
Continue status conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 unless the case has been closed by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
May 30, 2019
Take status conference off calendar.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Imperial Credit Industries Inc Represented By David L. Neale Daniel H Reiss
David R. Weinstein
Trustee(s):
Edward M Wolkowitz (TR) Represented By Tavi C Flanagan
Jeffrey M. Reisner Mike D Neue William N Lobel Edward M Wolkowitz James E Till
Kerri A Lyman Michael K Sugar
10:30 AM
(Set at Ch 11 Plan Conf. hrg. held 6-15-17) FR: 12-14-17; 5-31-18; 11-15-18
Docket 5270
- NONE LISTED -
December 14, 2017
A post-confirmation status report was due November 30, 2017 per the Confirmation Order entered June 28, 2017 [docket #5285]. Impose sanctions of $100 against Reorganized Debtor's counsel for failure to do so; court to issue OSC why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
May 31, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018
Continue status conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 unless a final decree has been entered by such date. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
May 30, 2019
Continue status conference to November 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 7, 2019, 2019 unless a final decree has been entered by such date.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Docket 84
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael James Sumrall Sr. Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Rosanna Lynne Sumrall Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Karen Sue Naylor William M Burd
10:30 AM
Docket 22
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Aileen Patricia Angel Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
John M Wolfe (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. hrg. held 5/22/14)
FR: 11-20-14; 3-5-15; 9-10-15; 3-10-16; 9-8-16; 3-16-17; 9-21-17; 3-22-18;
3-29-18; 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19
Docket 209
- NONE LISTED -
November 20, 2014
Continue status conference to March 5, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.,; updated status report to be filed by Feb 19, 2015. (XX)
Special note: The court would ordinarily continue the hearing 180 days. However, because of Debtor's failure to timely commence plan payments as to certain classes, the continued hearing will be heard sooner this time.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtors' responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 5, 2015
Continue status conference to September 10, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by August 27, 2015. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the
10:30 AM
UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 10, 2015
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 10, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by February 25, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
March 10, 2016
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 8, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 28, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 8, 2016
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 2, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
March 16, 2017 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 31, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
September 21, 2017
Comments:
The report re Class 6 appears to be a cut and paste from the Sixth Postconfirmation Status Report -- has Debtor made quarterly distributions in 2017?
Does Debtor intend to seek a final decree prior to 2024, notwithstanding that plan payments will continue until 2024?
March 29, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to October 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by September 27, 2018 (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well-
10:30 AM
prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
October 11, 2018
Updated postconfirmation status report not timely filed. Impose sanctions against Debtor's counsel in the amount of $100.00 for failure to timely file an updated status report.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed no later than March 7, 2019 and should specifically address 1) Debtor's employment status, and 2) the status of plan arrearages as to Class 2(c). (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements
March 21, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; An updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 and such report shall address the following: 1) the amount of arrears for each class that is not current as of May 1, 2019, and 2) the status of her employment. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
May 30, 2019
Continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 29, 2019.
Special note: The court is concerned about Debtor's continuing plan default as to Class 2(c).
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
Debtor(s):
Alma Theresa Tejadilla Reyes Represented By
Ivan M Lopez Ventura Jeffrey V Hernandez
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19
Docket 165
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation Regarding Payment of Chapter 13 Trustee Fees Resulting from Settlement Agreement and Resolving Chapter 13 Trustee's Comments on or Objections to Employment and Fee Application and 9019 Motion filed 5/29/19; Order Approving Stipulation Lodged in LOU on 5/29/19, Order #8192148 - td (5/29/2019)
May 30, 2019
This matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19
Docket 169
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation Regarding Payment of Chapter 13 Trustee Fees Resulting from Settlement Agreement and Resolving Chapter 13 Trustee's Comments on or Objections to Employment and Fee Application and 9019 Motion filed 5/29/19; Order Approving Stipulation Lodged in LOU on 5/29/19, Order #8192148 - td (5/29/2019)
May 30, 2019
This matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
.
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 164
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation Regarding Payment of Chapter 13 Trustee Fees Resulting from Settlement Agreement and Resolving Chapter 13 Trustee's Comments on or Objections to Employment and Fee Application and 9019 Motion filed 5/29/19; Order Approving Stipulation Lodged in LOU on 5/29/19, Order #8192148 - td (5/29/2019)
May 30, 2019
This matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 16
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of U.S. Trustee's Motion for Order Reopening Chapter 7 Case to Administer Assets and Appoint a Chapter 7 Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §350(b), filed 5/1/2019 - td (5/1/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Filiberto Sanchez Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Joint Debtor(s):
Regina Fragoso Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Trustee(s):
John M Wolfe (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 55
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Luis A. Olivarez Represented By Peter Recchia
Joint Debtor(s):
Maritza J. Olivarez Represented By Peter Recchia
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
[WEILAND GOLDEN GOODRICH LLP, COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE]
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Luis A. Olivarez Represented By Peter Recchia
Joint Debtor(s):
Maritza J. Olivarez Represented By Peter Recchia
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
Claim 1-1 American Express Bank, FSB
Docket 140
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant to disallow claim in the amount of
$97,632.47. Deny motion as to the remaining $15,579.03. Basis for Tentative Ruling
Per the analysis of the 9th Circuit in In re Sterba,852 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ohio statute of limitations applies. Factually, this case is indistinguishable from Sterba. In Sterba, as in this case, the California 4-year statute of limitations expired prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Nevertheless, the Court held that based upon its interpretation of the 2nd Restatement, the filing of the bankruptcy created a special exception. The court does not find the existence of Action bankruptcy to be a significant distinguishing factor.
The creditor always has the ultimate burden of proof. Here, American Express has only provided a copy of credit agreement that was sent to Debtor in June 2011 but cannot produce a copy of the original agreement. The court does not find persuasive the testimony of an assistant custodian that the agreement sent in 2011 was identical to the one provided to Debtor twenty- nine years earlier. Accordingly, the June 2011 contract only applies to the charges made after it was sent to debtor. This is consistent with Utah statutory law -- Utah Code Section 25-5-4(2)(e) which provides that a credit
10:30 AM
agreement is binding and enforceable without any signature by the party to be charged if (i) "the debtor is provided with a written copy of the terms of the agreement" and (iii) after the debtor receives the agreement, the debtor, or a person authorized by the debtor . . . uses the credit card." (emphasis added)
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Docket 14
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Braulio Ivan Arling Represented By Rex Tran
Joint Debtor(s):
Elizabeth Ann Arling Represented By Rex Tran
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01016 Marshack v. Nelson
FR: 4-11-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 30, 2019
No tentative ruling -- trail matter to the 2:00pm calendar
Debtor(s):
Kirk M. Nelson Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
Kirk M Nelson Pro Se
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Robert P Goe
Thomas J Eastmond
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 64
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant motion to correct the Lien Avoidance Order as follows: 1) Page 3, section 4(b)(4) is corrected to remove the Green Cycle Lien in the amount of
$136,492.05 from the calculation; 2) Page 3 , section 4(c), subtotal is corrected to $289,653.17; 3) Page 3, section 4(e) is corrected to
$122,346.83.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Section §522(b) allows a debtor to exempt: "(1) property under the federal exemptions contained in [s]ection 522(d), unless state law does not so authorize, or (2) property [ ] under state or local law, or other federal law." In re Higgins, 201 B.R. 965, 966 (BAP 9th Cir. 1996).
In pertinent part, § 522(f)(1) provides that a debtor "[m]ay avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is—(A) a judicial lien...." See Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 309 (1991). Under § 101(36), a "judicial lien" includes one "obtained by judgment..." Yerrington v.
Yerrington (In re Yerrington), 144 B.R. 96, 98–99 (BAP 9th Cir. 1992).
Interpreting § 522(f)(1), the BAP summarized and restated the statutory requirements to avoid a lien:
10:30 AM
There are four basic elements to avoiding a lien under §522(f)(1)(A): "First, there must be an exemption to which the debtor ‘would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section.’ 11 U.S.C. §522(f). Second, the property must be listed on the debtor’s schedules and claimed as exempt. Third, the lien must impair that exemption.
Fourth, the lien must be … a judicial lien."
In re Goswami, 304 B.R. 386, 390-1 (BAP 9th Cir. 2003)(citation omitted).
Guidance on how to calculate the impairment and the extent of the impairment on a debtor’s exemption for § 522(f)(1) purposes is provided in In re Hanger, 217 B.R. 592, 595 (BAP 9th Cir. 1997), aff'd 196 F.3d 1292
(9th Cir. 1999).
In Hanger, the BAP reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court’s order avoiding a bank’s judicial lien in its entirety when the bank’s judicial lien only partially impaired the debtor’s homestead exemption. Id. at 595. The BAP used a two-step process to calculate the amount of the bank’s lien to be avoided.
First, the BAP applied the formula found in § 522(f)(2)(A) which dictates that:
a lien shall be considered to impair an exemption to the extent the sum of – (i) the lien; (ii) all other liens on the property; and (iii) the amount of the exemption that the debtor could claim if there were no liens on the property; exceeds the value that the debtor’s interest in the property would have in the absence of any liens.
Section §522(b) allows a debtor to exempt: "(1) property under the federal exemptions contained in [s]ection 522(d), unless state law does not so authorize, or (2) property [ ] under state or local law, or other federal law." In re Higgins, 201 B.R. 965, 966 (BAP 9th Cir. 1996).
In pertinent part, § 522(f)(1) provides that a debtor "[m]ay avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been
10:30 AM
entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is—(A) a judicial lien...." See Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 309 (1991). Under § 101(36), a "judicial lien" includes one "obtained by judgment..." Yerrington v.
Yerrington (In re Yerrington), 144 B.R. 96, 98–99 (BAP 9th Cir. 1992).
Interpreting § 522(f)(1), the BAP summarized and restated the statutory requirements to avoid a lien:
There are four basic elements to avoiding a lien under §522(f)(1)(A): "First, there must be an exemption to which the debtor ‘would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section.’ 11 U.S.C. §522(f). Second, the property must be listed on the debtor’s schedules and claimed as exempt. Third, the lien must impair that exemption.
Fourth, the lien must be … a judicial lien."
In re Goswami, 304 B.R. 386, 390-1 (BAP 9th Cir. 2003)(citation omitted).
Guidance on how to calculate the impairment and the extent of the impairment on a debtor’s exemption for § 522(f)(1) purposes is provided in In re Hanger, 217 B.R. 592, 595 (BAP 9th Cir. 1997), aff'd 196 F.3d 1292
(9th Cir. 1999).
In Hanger, the BAP reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court’s order avoiding a bank’s judicial lien in its entirety when the bank’s judicial lien only partially impaired the debtor’s homestead exemption. Id. at 595. The BAP used a two-step process to calculate the amount of the bank’s lien to be avoided.
First, the BAP applied the formula found in § 522(f)(2)(A) which dictates that:
a lien shall be considered to impair an exemption to the extent the sum of – (i) the lien; (ii) all other liens on the property; and (iii) the amount of the exemption that the debtor could claim if there were no liens on the property; exceeds the value that the debtor’s interest in the property would have in the absence of any liens.
10:30 AM
Hanger, 217 B.R. at 595. Moreover, in "the case of a property subject to more than 1 lien, a lien that has been avoided shall not be considered in making the calculation under subparagraph (A) with respect to other liens." 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(B). Thus, "Applying the formula requires that liens the liens be subtracted in order of reverse priority and that those which are avoided not be included in the calculation." Hanger, 217 B.R. at 595.
Next to determine "to what extent the lien impairs the exemption and must be avoided," the BAP utilized the following calculation:
the amount of the impairment [i.e., the lien to be avoided +all other liens+ exemption] minus the amount of the debtor’s interest in the property absent any liens.
See, id. The Hanger BAP decision was affirmed and adopted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, so the Hanger BAP decision "became binding Ninth Circuit precedent." In re Chiu, 2017 WL 1149076, at *3 (BAP 9th Cir. Mar.
27, 2017), aff'd, 742 F. App'x 345 (9th Cir. 2018).
In this case, Debtor has satisfied the elements for partial avoidance of the Green Cycle Lien. Debtors claimed a homestead exemption in Debtor’s Residence in the amount of $100,000 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §704.730, and Debtor is entitled to the exemption because no objection has been made. See, Lien Avoidance Mot., Item 11a. The Green Cycle Lien is a judicial lien, arising from Green Cycle’s recorded abstract of judgment. See, Lien Avoidance Mot., Item 11d. Finally, the Green Cycle Lien impairs Debtors’ homestead exemption as follows:
Fair Market Value
The fair market value of Debtors’ Residence is $412,000 per the appraisal attached to the Lien Avoidance Motion. See, Lien Avoidance Mot., Item 11b.
Calculation for Impairment
The two liens junior to the Green Cycle Lien were also avoided per
10:30 AM
orders entered on March 18, 2019, so they are not included in the calculation. Thus, using the $412,000 fair market value of Debtors’ Residence, the math is as follows:
Lien to be avoided + [All other liens] + Exemption amount > Value of property
$136,492.05 + [$162,705.66 + $15,776.65+ $11,170.86] + $100,000 >
$412,000
= $426,445.22 > $412,000
As shown by the calculations, Debtors’ exemption is impaired because the amount of the impairment [i.e., the sum of the Green Cycle Lien, all other liens on Debtor’s Residence, and the amount of Debtors’ homestead exemption] exceeds Debtor’s interest in Debtors’ Residence absent any liens [i.e., the fair market value of Debtor’s Residence per the appraisal].
Next, to determine the extent of the impairment, and the amount that may therefore be avoided, the following calculation is used:
the amount of the impairment [i.e., the lien to be avoided +all other liens+ exemption] minus the amount of the debtor’s interest in the property absent any liens.
See, Hanger, 217 B.R. at 595. Thus, the amount of the impairment and the amount to be avoided in this case is:
[the Green Cycle Lien, all other liens, and Debtor’s homestead exemption] – [the fair market value]
$426,445.22- $412,000 = $14,445.22
The Green Cycle Lien therefore impairs Debtor’s homestead exemption in the amount of $14,445.22 and the Green Cycle Lien may be avoided in this amount. Since the amount of the Green Cycle Lien is $136,492.05, the amount of Green Cycle’s lien after subtracting $14,445.22 is:
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
$136,492.05 - $14,445.22 = $122,046.83.
Edward Jae Whang Represented By Andrew S Cho
Joint Debtor(s):
Sophia Kyunghwa Whang Represented By Andrew S Cho
Movant(s):
Geen Cycle Technology, Inc. Represented By
Richard Floyd Weiner
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 45
OFF CALENDAR: Per Order Approving Stipulation to Resolve Motion Entered 5-16-19 (liz)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jane Kim Represented By
Andrew K Kim
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
F.R.B.P. 2017 and to Order Counsel to File a 2016(b) Statement
Docket 19
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation Regarding Counsel's Fees Pursuant to U.S. Trustee's Motion Under U.S.C. §329 Entered 5/17/2019 - td (5/20/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Laura Rivera Represented By
A Mina Tran
Movant(s):
United States Trustee (SA) Represented By Michael J Hauser
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(1) Use of Cash Collateral on an Interim Basis; (2) Approving Interim Order Fulfillment Agreement; and (3) Setting Final Hearing on Use of Cash Collateral and Hearing on Section 363 Sale
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
March 26, 2019
The court is inclined to grant the motion. However, Debtor will need to address the following:
The Motion asks that this court approve the "Interim Order Fulfillment Agreement" ("Fulfillment Agreement") between Debtor and SUMMIT on the one hand, and on the other hand requests that the court set a hearing on Debtor's proposed sale motion. However, as far as the court can tell, there is no separate Fulfillment Agreement for this court to approve. Instead, there is a provision in the Purchase Agreement, Article 10, entitled "Fulfillment Agreemnt." Is Debtor asking the court to approve a single provision of an otherwise unapproved Purchase Agreement? Or is there a separate document memorializing the Fulfillment Agreement that is not attached to the Motion?
Will SUMMIT continue to process and fulfill orders after the sale hearing but before closing if it is not the successful bidder?
Final hearing date: May 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
10:30 AM
April 23, 2019
No tentative ruling. Continue use of cash collateral will likely not be required following hearing on motion to approve asset purchase agreement.
Debtor to advise the court re the status of fulfillment orders and any issues arising since April 16, 2019.
Wells Fargo to advise the court of any issues re the accounting it received from Summit
May 30, 2019
Debtor to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
(OSC Issued 4/30/2019)
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Delinquent payment(s) not made. Dismiss case
Debtor(s):
Pete Rios Sanchez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 363(m); and (4) Approving Compromise of Controversy Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 [holding date]
FR: 10-11-18; 11-8-18; 12-13-18; 2-7-19; 4-18-19; 5-16-19
Docket 52
- NONE LISTED -
November 8, 2018
Comments re the Motion/Opposition
According to the claims register, proofs of claim have been filed in the amount of approximately $33,000. Presumably, the current bid of $63,000 would be sufficient to pay such claims 100% with interest.
The court presumes claims could be paid 100% with interest but such is not clear as the trustee has not indicated what the amount of administrative expenses would be. Trustee needs to provide this information.
The court is open to granting the Motion (subject to overbid at the hearing) unless Debtors pay all claims with interest at the offered rate of 5% as well as all administrative expenses, in full within 15 days of the hearing date, at which time the claim against Bank of American will be deemed abandoned to Debtors.
If Debtors are unable to pay all claims and adminstrative expenses in full in indicated above, then the sale to Bank of America may be immediately
10:30 AM
consummated in the amount of $63,000.
The court notes that on Nov. 5, 2018, Debtors filed a skeletal motion to convert to chapter 11 without providing any evidence of an ability to fund a chapter 11 plan. Clearly, it's in the best interest of creditors of the estate to be paid in full immediately than to wait until a chapter 11 plan is confirmed and consummated.
April 18, 2019
Grant the motion, subject to overbid. The sale will take place outside the courtroom.
Overrule Debtors' objection to the sale.
May 16, 2019
Trustee to advise the court re the status of this matter.
May 30, 2019
Grant motion to sell to Bank of America
Debtor(s):
James E. Case Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura M. Case Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Reem J Bello
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:19-01016 Marshack v. Nelson
Docket 4
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant with prejudice as to 1) the claims re breach of fiduciary duty (Complaint at paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24) and 2) the reference to "oppression" in paragraph 29 of the Complaint; Grant without prejudice to require Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that clearly alleges claims under 523(a)(4) (embezzlement) and 523(a)(6). Deny as to the allegations re 523(a)(3). Plaintiff must file an amended Complaint by or before June 27, 2019; Defendant must file a responsive pleading by or before July 25, 2019. Status conference will be set for September 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by August 29, 2019.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
FRCP FRCP 12(b)(6)
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Under a FRCP 12 motion, all factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability
2:00 PM
requirement," but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and probability of entitlement to relief. In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Iqbal, supra, at 1950. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
In Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007), the Supreme Court established more stringent notice-pleading standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A plaintiff is required to provide more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ...." Id. The plaintiff must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly overruled the more liberal Conley v. Gibson standard, which held that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. With the new standard in Twombly, the Supreme Court has said that the facts asserted in support of the claim need to cross the line "from conceivable to plausible."
Nondischargeability of Debt Under § 523(a)(3)
"Section 523(a)(3)(B) provides that a discharge under § 727 does not discharge a debtor from a debt of the kind specified under § 523(a)(2), (4) or
that was not scheduled in time to permit the timely filing of a proof of claim or a timely request for a determination of dischargeability, unless the creditor has notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing and request." In re Staffer, 262 B.R. 80, 82 (BAP 9th Cir. 2001), aff'd, 306 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2002). "The time for filing a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt under § 523(a)(3)(B) is governed by Rule 4007(b)" so a complaint under § 523(a)(3)(B) may be filed at any time. Id.
2:00 PM
The Complaint Pleads a Plausible Claim That Defendant Did Not Have Notice Defendant’s Bankruptcy and the Filing Deadline for a Nondischargeability Complaint
As a preliminary matter, the Complaint alleges sufficient fact to
demonstrate that Trustee did not receive notice of Defendant' bankruptcy, or the deadline to file a § 523 complaint, because Defendant did not name Trustee anywhere in his petition or schedules until December 26, 2018 when Defendant filed amended schedules. See, Compl., ¶¶33 and 36-37.
Notwithstanding the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant argues that Trustee cannot invoke § 523(a)(3)(B) because Plaintiff had constructive notice of the Defendant’s bankruptcy filing. Defendant argues that Defendant listed Team Business’ bankruptcy his petition and statement of related cases, so Plaintiff claims are now barred. See, Mot., p. 8:13-16. This argument is unpersuasive.
While Defendant did list Team Business’ bankruptcy in his petition and statement of related case, Defendant provides no legal authority, or practical explanation, of how this provided constructive notice to Plaintiff. Again, the name "Richard A. Marshack" and in his capacity as trustee of Team Business’ bankruptcy estate does not appear anywhere in Defendant’s petition and related documents. See generally, Defendant’s Petition and Related Documents [Dkt. #1]. Again, the Court may take judicial notice of matters subject to judicial notice, in this case, its own records.
Second, Defendant’s bankruptcy petition and statement of related cases are not synonymous with the creditor mailing matrix. Only creditors who are listed on the mailing matrix receive notice from the court of of the bankruptcy and the deadline for filing nondischargeability complaints. Here, Defendant’s creditors mailing matrix does not include Plaintiff, so no notices would have been mailed to Plaintiff by the Court. See, Defendant’s Creditors Mailing Matrix, p. 8-11 of Petition and Related Documents [Dkt. #1].
Third, the BNC Notice of Defendant’s bankruptcy confirms that Plaintiff did not receive notice of the deadline to file a nondischargeability complaint because the notice was not mailed to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel. See, BNC Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case [Dkt. #9]. Plaintiff has stated a
2:00 PM
plausible claim on this point.
§ 523(a)(4)
Certain allegations in the Complaint appear to be asserting, for 523(a)(3)(B) purposes, that Defendant engaged in fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. See, e.g., paragraphs 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the Complaint. Notwithstanding such allegations, Plaintiff now appears to be disavowing any intent to invoke the same. Accordingly, paragraphs 21, 22, 23, and 24 should be dismissed (or stricken),
In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that he is asserting nondischargeability under 523(a)(4) based on embezzlement only. In order to satisfy 523(a)(3), Plaintiff must plead facts addressing the elements of embezzlement.
Embezzlement is defined as ‘the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has been entrusted or into whose hands it has lawfully come.’" First Del. Life Ins. Co. v. Wada (In re Wada), 210 B.R.
572, 576 (9th Cir. BAP 1997) (citation omitted). "In the context of non- dischargeability, embezzlement requires 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." Id. (citation omitted). A "a debt can be nondischargeable for embezzlement under 523(a)(4) without the existence of a fiduciary relationship." In re Littleton, 942 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1991).
The Complaint does not clearly allege a claim for embezzlement, making only a passing reference to the claim in paragraph 32.
Willful and Malicious Injury Under § 523(a)(6)
Under § 523(a)(6), any debt arising from "willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity" is nondischargeable. Types of debts excluded from discharge under §523(a)(6) are limited to intentional tort debts. Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1998). Debts arising from recklessness or negligence are not within the
2:00 PM
scope of §523(a)(6). Id. at 64. For the purposes of § 523(a)(6), the court must find the injury inflicted by the debtor was both willful and malicious. In re Ormsby, 591 F.3d 11199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2010).
The "willful injury" requirement is met when the creditor shows that: (1) the debtor had a subjective motive to inflict the injury; or (2) the debtor believed the injury was substantially certain to occur as a result of his or her conduct. In re Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2001). This section is limited "to those situations in which the debtor possesses subjective intent to cause harm or knowledge that harm is substantially certain to result from his actions." In re Su, 290 F.3d 1140, 1145, fn 3 (9th Cir. 2002). The subject intent to harm, however, does not require a creditor to show that the debtor acted with an intent to harm the creditor, only that the "act must necessarily cause harm to the creditor." Littleton, 942 F.2d at 555.
A "malicious injury" involves: (1) a wrongful act; (2) done intentionally;
(3) that necessarily causes injury; and (4) that is committed without just cause or excuse. In re Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2001). "Maliciousness may be implied from circumstances surrounding debtor’s conduct, even without proof that debtor acted with spite, hatred, or ill will toward the victim." In re Ormsby, 591 F.3d at 1207.
Here, the allegations re 523(a)(6) are vague and inartfully pled. In addition, Plaintiff muddies the waters by including language that falls outside wilful and malicious injury, to wit: "In performing the acts herein alleged, Nelson acted with oppression, fraud and malice, or in the alternative acted in such conscious disregard of Team Business’s rights." Complaint at paragraph 29. "Oppression" does not satisfy the subjective standard of 523(a) (6). See In re Plyam, 530 B.R. 456, 470 (9th Cir. BAP 2015).
Many of the core allegations are presented in the context of breach of fiduciary duty. (Complaint at paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24). However, breach of fiduciary duty does not satisfy the requirements of 523(a)(6). Id at 471
Defendant's Arguments re Transfer of Assets
Defendant appears to present arguments identical to that raised in the
2:00 PM
SNCR adversary concerning the transfer of assets of Team Business -- arguments which this court rejected. There is no legal authority preventing Plaintiff from alleging, at the pleading stage, the transfer of contracts, customer lists, goodwill, etc. in the context of 523(a)(4) (embezzlement) and 523(a)(6). Accordingly, the Complaint is not being dismissed on this basis.
Debtor(s):
Kirk M. Nelson Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
Kirk M Nelson Represented By
J Scott Williams
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Robert P Goe
Thomas J Eastmond
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01095 Albert-Sheridan v. Coast Huntington Business Centers et al
Retaliatory Eviction 3. Violation of Automatic Stay FR: 11-15-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 5-9-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice filed 5/6/2019 - td (5/14/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to January 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a timely and fully completed joint status report that addresses all relevant issues, including without limitation, status of service of summons and complaint on defendants Icon Owner Pool 1 and LA Business Parks LLC*, satisfaction of meet and confer requirements, discovery needs, etc (see joint status report form for additional details and disclosures). A joint status report must be filed no later than January 17, 2019. (XX)
As Plaintiff asserts actions against her or her property in violation of her
9:30 AM
automatic stay, the trustee has no standing. Even if he did, he has abandoned it to Plaintiff. Further, as bankruptcy law (11 U.S.C. 362(a)) is implicated the matter must be adjudicated in this court.
*Defendant Coast Huntington Business Centers has filed a motion to dismiss which is set for hearing on today's 10:30 a.m. calendar and is unopposed. The tentative ruling is to grant the motion to dismiss as to such defendant. [See Calendar #45]
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
January 31, 2019
In light of the unilateral status report filed by defendant Icon, this status conference shall be continued to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. and an updated joint status report must be filed by February 26, 2019. The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not be Dismissed Due to Failure to Prosecute ("OSC"), which OSC shall also be set for hearing on March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
June 6, 2019
Continue pretrial conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as the continued hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Coast Huntington Business Centers Pro Se
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
9:30 AM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Emergency Motion to Dismiss Involuntary Petition Entered 4/23/2019 - td (4/23/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Siamak Iravantchi Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 74
OFF CALENDAR -- Adequate Protection Stipulation filed 5/31/19 --eas Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Settled by Stipulation Entered 5/31/19 - (iz) (5/31/2019)
Debtor(s):
Thomas John Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Kristina Renee Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Movant(s):
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union Represented By
Nancy L Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jose Manuel Perez Dominguez Represented By Sam Benevento
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By
Austin P Nagel
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
TERRY MARTIN VS.
DEBTOR FR: 5-7-19
Docket 26
- NONE LISTED -
May 7, 2019
Continue hearing to June 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow moving party to provide evidence of his ownership interest in the subject property. (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling
The moving party states in the Motion that he is the "owner" of the subject property. However, the lease identifies the landlord as "Exlnt Property Management Co." At a minimum, movant needs to provide a sworn statement as to when he acquired title to the subject property. Relief from stay is appropriate if the moving party can establish "colorable" title to the property, which is a fairly low standard. However, no information is provided regarding moving party Terry Martin's interest in the property. If such information can be provided, the motion will be granted.
10:00 AM
June 6, 2019
Grant motion with waiver of the 4001(a)(3) 14-day stay.
Movant's supplemental pleading filed May 3, 2019 establishes colorable title to the property in question. Overrule Debtor's objections. This unlawful detainer matter needs to be resolved in state court.
Debtor(s):
Criss Tina Lenhart Pro Se
Movant(s):
Terry Martin Represented By
Barry L O'Connor
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mohamed Najathnick Ahmed Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Rosa E. Hernandez Represented By Kevin Tang
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Represented By
Austin P Nagel
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
WHITLEY TRUT #8561, SOUTHLAND HOMES REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENT LLC AS TRUSTEE
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kim Le Pro Se
Movant(s):
Whitley Trust #8561, Southland Represented By Barry L O'Connor
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Lan Anh Hoang Represented By Thinh V Doan
Movant(s):
Van D. Nguyen Represented By Jackson F Quan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 7
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Martha Contreras Represented By Erika Luna
Movant(s):
Golden 1 Credit Union Represented By Mirco J Haag
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
ALFRED BURIN & BARBARA BURIN, TRUSTEES OF THE BURIN FAMILY TRUST
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 4
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant motion with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Overrule Debtor's opposition as unpersuasive.
Debtor(s):
Patricia Annette Evans Represented By Edward T Weber
Movant(s):
ALFRED ALFRED BURIN & Represented By Stephen C Duringer
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 5/28/2019 - td (5/28/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
David Vargas Carrillo Jr Pro Se
Movant(s):
Kenneth D. Clausen; Louie B. Represented By Scott Andrews
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Continue hearing to July 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Debtor's Motion to Reconsider the Compromise Motion Order.
Tentative Ruling for July 16, 2019 hearing:
Based upon the court's review of the Motion to Disallow Proof of Claim #7, as well as the related Motion for Approval of the Compromise between the trustee and the defendant in the state court action, the court would be inclined to deny this Motion on the basis of lack of standing:
Debtor was properly served with notice of the motion for approval of the compromise and the opportunity to object. In fact, it is not uncommon for debtors to object to state court settlements. Here, Debtor did not object.
The Compromise Motion makes clear that the intent of the parties was to reach a settlement that would solely cover the costs of administering the chapter 7 case (trustee fees, trustee's attorneys fees, proofs of claim). The $200,000 amount was an estimate designed for that purpose -- which is why it included a provision for the return of any amount not necessary to pay the costs of the bankruptcy estate. The unopposed settlement was not intended to fund a surplus for Debtor. Accordingly, even if the Nourmand fees are reduced to
$0.00, under the Compromise, the Trustee would be required to return
10:30 AM
$125,997.50 plus $1707.58 to the Defendant. Consequently, there would be no return of a surplus to Debtor (exclusive of her exemption).
Special Note: The foregoing tentative ruling does not take into account Debtor's Reconsideration Motion or any opposition thereto as the court has not yet reviewed the same. The court is continuing this matter in order to review this Motion and the Reconsideration Motion together.
Note: No oral argument will be entertained at today's hearing in light of the continuance of the hearing to July 16, 2019.
Note:
Debtor(s):
Claudia Michel Estrada Represented By Luis G Torres Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
Docket 133
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of U.S. Trustee's Motion to Dismiss
or Convert Debtor's Case Under 11 U.S.C. §1112(b), filed 5/22/2019 - td (5/22/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01071 Albert-Sheridan v. Education Credit Management Corporation et al
FR: 12-20-18; 3-21-19
Docket 16
- NONE LISTED -
December 20, 2018
Grant motion to compel. Set status conference re status of compliance for March 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall file a statement re status of compliance by March 5, 2019 andDefendant may file a response by March 12, 2019. The imposition of the requested sanctions will only be granted if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to all interrogatories/request for production of documents by or before February 15, 2019. Any bank and/or credit statements, tax returns and other financial data may only be used by Defendant for the purpose of defending itself in this adversary proceeding and such information may only be shared with employees providing assistance in such defense.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
10:30 AM
The court has read the discovery requests and finds that they are all relevant to Defendant's defense to the complaint and are not vague, ambiguous or unduly burdensome.
As this matter involves Plaintiff's discharge of student loan debt, neither the Trustee or the bankruptcy estate has any interest in the same. In fact, the court specifically excluded this adversary proceeding from the trustee's abandonment motion at the December 13, 2018 hearing.
It is because the trustee did erroneously include this adversary in its list of adversaries to be abandoned that the court is allowing Plaintiff a period of time to respond to the discovery requests without sanction. However, if she refuses to respond to the requests fully and in good faith, monetary sanctions will be imposed.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
The parties are ordered to meet and confer outside the courtroom prior to the hearing to determine the scope of any remaining discovery issues. The matter will be placed at the end of the 10:30am calendar.
June 6, 2019
Defendant/Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Education Credit Management Represented By
10:30 AM
Scott A Schiff
The Education Resources Institute Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
April 18, 2019
The First Amended Disclosure Statement appears to be just as inadequate as the original. The court is leaning toward denying approval of this one as well.
Comments re the First Amended Disclosure Statement (DS)
An order granting relief from stay to BNYM was entered on April 15, 2019. Debtors need to address the impact of the RFS Order on the pending plan and disclosure statement.
DS, pg 5: Debtor lists FMV as $2.7M. Is this realistic in light of a) The bank's appraisal of $2.2M and b) the impending foreclosure?
DS, pg. 6:lines 3-13: Needs to be revised to reflect RFS being granted. See also pp. 8, 10, 11 and 13 and Exhibit A.
DS, pg. 6: Debtors need to describe the Fresno commercial property owned by their LLC, as well as its value and liens against it. Does the property operate at a profit or must Debtors contribute from their own funds to maintain it each month?
DS, pg. 7: Debtors need to describe the litigation with US Bank pending in
10:30 AM
state court and how/when the litigation will be prosecuted. How will Debtors fund the litigation?
DS, pg. 12: Debtors indicate that if the Lemon Heights property is surrendered (or presumably lost through foreclosure), they will make the Tustin property their principal residence. Such a move has 1123(b)(5) implications (prohibition against modifying the terms of a loan securing a debtor's principal residence) which would be inconsistent with the treatment of Class 5.
DS, pp.13-14: Re Means of Effectuating the Plan, no financial information is provided whatsoever re Debtors' monthly income Social Security and Pensions. There is a reference on page 14, lines 11-12 to an Exhibit 1 but there is no Exhibit 1 attached to the DS. Exhibit A provides gross rental income but does not provide net rental income or any information regarding monthly expenses necessary to maintain the rental properties.
No motion to employ a real estate broker has been filed re the Camino Santa Elise property though the plan provides for a sale prior to the effective date.
No mention of the $2,000 postpetition retainer paid to Debtors' counsel
The County of Orange has filed a secured claim in the amount of $37,900.50 that is not treated in the Plan. POC 4-1.
Is Debtor postpetition current on the properties that are being retained under the Plan?
June 6, 2019
Court's Comments re the Second Amended DS (2nd DS)
Though the plan depends, in part, on the sale of real property prior to the effective date of the Plan, no application for the employment of a real estate broker has been filed to date and the disclosure statement is silent as to why such an application has not been filed.
10:30 AM
The Class 6 claim, Bank of America is impaired as Debtors propose to pay the loan off in full by the effective date of the Plan.
Class 7 claim, US Bank:
Is there an actual written settlement agreement with US Bank regarding its treatment, i.e., $25,000 "down payment" and execution of a new promissory note for $625,000 with a 30-year fixed rate of 2.5%?
Is it still Debtors' plan to move into the Tustin residence which currently secures the US Bank claim? If so, absent a written settlement agreement, Debtors will run afoul of 1123(b)(5) which prohibits the modification of a loan secured by Debtors' principal residence. Absent clarification of these issues, the plan is unconfirmable on its face.
Short Sale of Lemon Heights Property:
Do Debtors have an actual short sale buyer for the Lemon Heights Property or are they hoping to find one? The 2nd DS at page 6 does not clearly articulate whether a short sale agreement has been signed by a prospective purchaser.
If Debtors have received a short sale offer, when was it received and when was it submitted to BNYM?
Sale of the Indio Property:
Though the feasibility of the Plan depends on the sale of the Indio Property by the effective date of the plan, not only has the property not yet been listed for sale, no application to employ a real estate broker has been filed -- despite the fact that this case has been pending for nearly one year.
Plan Provisions in 2nd DS
Paragraph 2 on page 24 (lines 7-10) should be included in the Plan
itself.
10:30 AM
Paragraph 3 at page 24 (lines 11-12) is an incomplete statement re the circumstances under which a confirmed plan can be modified -- should include the language in the Plan at page 9, lines 7-12.
Paragraph 4 at page 24 (lines 14-16) should be included in the Plan
itself.
Cancellation of Debt -- JP Morgan Chase Bank
Debtors refer to the reconveyance of a second deed of trust on the Lemon Heights property by JP Morgan Chase and the issuance of a 1099 (1099-C?). Debtors need to disclose the date of the reconveyance and whether the same will result in reportable income for Debtors.
Amount of Class 9 Unsecured Debt
At page 13, line 4 of the 2nd DS, Debtors state unsecured debt to be
$35,000. However, on page 6, line 20 of the Plan, the same date is stated as only $15,000. This discrepancy needs to be corrected.
Typo re Class 6: On page 5 at line 14, the third column needs to be corrected from "Class 4" to "Class 6."
US Trustee Late-Filed Objections
The court disagrees with the UST that the Class 1 claim of BNYM should be designated as impaired. BNYM has relief from stay to enforce its contractual right to foreclosure on the Lemon Heights property and the 2nd DS and plan reflect the same.
The court disagrees with the UST that the Class 2 claim of JP Morgan Chase should be designated as impaired. The UST gives no legal basis for this objection. In light of the reconveyance and issuance of a 1099, it appears this creditor has forgiven the debt and no longer even has a right to payment.
10:30 AM
The court agrees with the UST that the class 6 claim of BofA is
impaired.
The Class 7 claim of US Bank is already treated as impaired by Debtors. However, the court agrees there may be an 1123(b)(5) issue -- See comments above.
The court agrees with the UST that Exhibit A does not clearly set forth all Plan payments that need to be made, including administrative payments and payments to Class 9 unsecured creditors. This is especially important in light of the discrepancy re the amount of unsecured claims as between the 2nd DS and the Plan.
The UST's objection re the Best Interest Test of 1129(a)(7) is not fully articulated. Is the UST objecting to the 1% interest rate? Does the UST have an opinion as to what the appropriate interest rate should be?
Possible Confirmation Schedule:
IF the 2nd DS is conditionally approved, the following schedule could
apply: | |
Deadline to file 3rd Amended DS/Plan: | 6/20/2019 |
Deadline to serve plan/DS/ballots: | 7/2/2019 |
Deadline for return of ballots/obj to plan: | 7/31/2019 |
Deadline to file ballots/confirmation brief: | 8/12/2019 |
Confirmation Hearing: | 8/22/2019 at 10:30 a.m. |
Note: Appearances at this hearing ARE required.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
and (2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 9-6-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 3-21-19; 4-18-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues which are not addressed in the status report:
Cash Collateral: Debtor has rental income but there is no mention of seeking authorization to use cash collateral or a cash collateral stipulation.
State Court Litigation: More information regarding the nature and procedural posture of the state court action is required. What was going on in the litigation that caused this case to be filed? How will this litigation be dealt with in the bankruptcy case?
Plan/Disclosure Statement: This case appears to be relatively straightforward but the timing of filing a plan and disclosure statement is not discussed in the status report.
Tentative Schedule:
Claims Bar Date: Nov. 19, 2018 (notice by Sept. 17, 2018)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: Nov. 29, 2018
Con't Status Conf: Dec. 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report Due: Dec. 6, 2018 (waived if plan/DS timely
10:30 AM
filed)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 20, 2018
Impose sanctions in the amount against Debtor's for 1) failure to file a plan and disclosure statement and failure to timely file a status report in accordance with the court's September 6, 2018 order. No explanation is offered as why the plan and disclosure statement were not filed by November 29, 2018. No attempt was made to seek an extension of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement. Apparently, counsel views the dates set forth in such order as a mere suggestion which can otherwise be ignored.
The court will issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely file a plan and disclosure statement and to comply with orders of the court.
Note: Apppearance at this hearing is required.
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of related matter on today's calendar.
March 21, 2019
Continue chapter 11 status conference to April 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of disclosure statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is
10:30 AM
Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
April 18, 2019
No tentative ruling; outcome will depend upon the disposition of #24 on today's calendar.
June 6, 2019
No tentative ruling; outcome will depend upon the disposition of #16 on today's calendar.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
Docket 111
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of U.S. Trustee's Motion to Dismiss
or Convert Debtor's Case Under 11 U.S.C. §1112(b) Filed 5/22/2019 - td (5/22/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 157
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 159
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 161
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01111 Skipper v. United States Department of Education
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Timely response to OSC not filed. Dismiss adversary proceeding due to failure to prosecute.
Debtor(s):
Rubin J Skipper Pro Se
Defendant(s):
United States Department of Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Reuben J Skipper Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01111 Skipper v. United States Department of Education
FR: 9-6-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 3-19-19; 4-18-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to properly serve the complaint and to timely file the proof of service re the same with the court. (XX)
Plaintiff has not filed the proof of service showing proper service of the complaint on the defendant, a United States agency. The proof of service attached to unilateral status report shows service at a P.O. box which is improper. Plaintiff will need to obtain another summons and properly serve the defendant. Plaintiff also needs to review the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Court Manual of the Bankruptcy Court of the Central Dist of California re the proper method of service.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018
Continue status conference to December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. As no progress has been made re the filing of a proof of service showing proper
9:30 AM
service to Defendant, the court will issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not Be Dismissed Due to Lack of Prosecution ("OSC"), which OSC shall be set for December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
- OSC issued 11/16/18, dkt #5 - td (11/16/18)
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by March 5, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
Updated status report not filed by April 11, 2019 pursuant to this court's March 8, 2019 Order [docket #15].
Plaintiff to appear and advise the court re the status of negotiations with Defendant.
June 13, 2019
Take status conference off calendar in light of dismissal of the adversary proceeding.
Debtor(s):
Rubin J Skipper Pro Se
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
United States Department of Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Reuben J Skipper Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01036 Skipper v. US Department of Education
Docket 0
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Timely response to OSC not filed. Dismiss adversary proceeding due to failure to prosecute.
Debtor(s):
Rubin J Skipper Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Department of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Reuben J Skipper Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01036 Skipper v. US Department of Education
FR: 5-30-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Plaintiff needs to appear and explain why he has filed an identical complaint re nondischargeability of student loan debt as in adversary #18-0111. Neither complaint has been properly served on Defendant. The court is inclined to dismiss this adversary proceeding for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this status conference is required.
June 13, 2019
Take status conference off calendar in light of dismissal of the adversary proceeding.
Debtor(s):
Rubin J Skipper Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Department of Education Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Reuben J Skipper Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 100
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Grant motion with 4001(a)(3) waiver unless Movant is agreeable to an adequate protection order.
If both parties agree to the continuance of the hearing to allow time to negotiate and APO, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing. Available continued dates are June 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. and July 18, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Darryl L. Cazares Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Joint Debtor(s):
DeAnna J. Cazares Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
ABS REO Trust II Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Gilbert R Yabes Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
RYAL W. RICHARDS. VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 16
SPECIAL NOTE: Request for Continuance of Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay filed on 6/10/2019; Order to Continue Motion Lodged (over the counter) on 6/11/2019 - td (6/11/2019)
June 13, 2019
Grant motion; deny request for prospective relief due to insufficient grounds stated therefor. Deny Debtor's Motion to continue this hearing.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
It is abundantly evident that the dispute between Debtor and her former spouse must be determined in state court and Debtor has stated no good reason why the state court litigation should not proceed.
Debtor states in conclusory fashion that the subject real property is necessary for reorganization. The chapter 13 plan belies that argument as the primary objective of the plan is to pay administrative expenses and unsecured creditors. It would be an abuse of the bankruptcy system to allow Debtor to "park" the subject real property in a chapter 13 case for five years, leaving in
10:00 AM
limbo the adjudication of the state law marital dissolution issues.
Debtor has provided an array of exhibits, many of them excerpts of larger documents or transcripts, without explanation or context, none of which persuades this court that the dissolution-related litigation should not proceed in state court. The court notes in particular Exhibit F to Debtor's opposition to the Motion includes an excerpt of a transcript of a hearing in which Debtor has highlighted that portion of Judge De La Cruz ruling in which he states "I'm not deeming you a vexatious litigant yet." Not highlighted, are the judge's next statement: "If you continue to file things frivolously in bad faith for the intent to drag things out on multiple fronts, then I will deem you a vexatious litigant." (emphasis added).
Re the notice issue raised by Debtor, the defect is de minimus, the hearing date in the original notice was off by one day -- June 12, 2019 instead of June 13, 2019. This would only impact Debtor by lessening the response time by one day, i.e., May 29, 2019 instead of May 30, 2019. As Debtor did not file any response until June 4, 2019, she is not prejudiced by the notice defect.
UPDATE -- ADDENDUM TO ABOVE TENTATIVE RULING IN LIGHT OF TARDILY FILED PAPERS BY DEBTOR ON JUNE 10, 2019.
On June 10, 2019, Debtor filed a substitution of attorney indicating that she has terminated legal representation by her attorney of record, Omid J. Shirazi, as well as additional pleadings in opposition to the Motion. Nothing in the late-filed opposition documents changes the court's original tentative ruling above that this matter needs to be adjudicated in state court. In addition the court notes as follows:
Granting relief from the automatic stay to allow family law related litigation to be fully adjudicated in state court is entirely consistent with the law of this circuit. See, MacDonald v. MacDonald (In re MacDonald ), 755 F.2d 715, 717 (9th Cir.1985) ("It is appropriate for bankruptcy courts to avoid incursions into family law matters “out of consideration of court economy, judicial restraint, and deference to our state court brethren and their established expertise in such matters.” ... Schulze v. Schulze, 15 B.R. 106, 109 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1981) (granting debtor's wife relief from stay to complete state proceedings
10:00 AM
for divorce, child custody and property division)".
The bankruptcy court is a court of limited jurisdiction and cannot be used to avoid state court rulings/orders that a party believes were wrongfully decided or unjust -- the appropriate avenue is the appeal of such rulings or orders. Under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1), this court has the discretion to abstain from hearing matters where 1) state law predominates over bankruptcy issues, 2) there is an existing related proceeding in state court (at either the trial or appellate level), 3) there is no federal jurisdiction other than the filing of the bankruptcy petition, 4) the likelihood that the filing of the bankruptcy case involved forum shopping by the debtor, 5) the presence of nondebtor parties, and 6) the lack of any substantive effect on the administration of the bankruptcy case if absention is exercised. See, In re Tucson Estates, 912 F.2d 1162, 1166-68 (9th Cir. 1990). As the issues to be adjudicated in this case involve all state law issues regarding marital property division and distribution, there is an existing related state court proceeding, there is no federal jurisdiction beyond the filing of the bankruptcy petition, there are affected nondebtor parties, the adjudication in state court will not substantively impact the administration of this estate because this is essentially a two-party dispute between Debtor and her former spouse that cannot be resolved through the chapter 13 claim or plan process, and Debtor has admitted in her supplemental opposition pleadings that this case was filed to avoid the affect of various state court rulings (forum shopping).
Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), a bankruptcy filing imposes an automatic stay of virtually all civil litigation against the debtor. A bankruptcy court “shall” lift the automatic stay “for cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1); Tucson Estates, 912 F.2d at 1166. “ ‘Cause’ has no clear definition and is determined on a case-by- case basis.” Id. “Where a bankruptcy court may abstain from deciding issues in favor of an imminent state court trial involving the same issues, cause may exist for lifting the stay as to the state court trial.” Id., citing Piombo Corp. v. Castlerock Props. (In re Castlerock Props.), 781 F.2d 159, 163 (9th Cir.1986).
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Represented By Omid J Shirazi
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Ryal W Richards Represented By Kevin E Robinson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 7
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Paul Francis Represented By
Timothy McFarlin
Joint Debtor(s):
Dinorah Vidal Represented By Timothy McFarlin
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
IAC AT JAMBOREE LLC Represented By Richard Sontag
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Deny motion as unnecessary -- this case is not subject to the stay restriction of 11 USC 362(c)(3).
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Section 362(c)(3) provides that where an individual had a single bankruptcy case pending within one year of the filing of the current bankruptcy case, the automatic stay expires 30 days after the petition date, unless a request to continue the stay is timely filed.
In this matter, Debtor's prior case, No. 15-15-14089, was dismissed on March 27, 2018. The current case was filed May 17, 2019, more than one year later. Accordingly, 363(c)(3) does not apply and the stay remains in effect.
Debtor's counsel shall not charge Debtor the preparation of this unnecessary motion.
Note: If Debtor accepts the tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Debtor shall lodge an order consistent with the same within 7 days of the hearing date.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Bernadette Ann Oliver Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Movant(s):
Bernadette Ann Oliver Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Debtor to address the following issues:
Debtor states that her circumstances have changed because she is now fully employed with additional part-time income whereas, in the prior case, she was receiving disability payments (plus part-time income). However, In the prior case, Debtor's net monthly income (including disability) was
$6,443.56, $330 per month more than her current income of $6,113.23 or
$330 less per month. Stated otherwise, Debtor's income has decreased with full employment.
With the higher income in the prior case, Debtor fell at least three months behind postpetition in mortgage payments and also fell delinquent in plan payments, prompting two trustee motions to dismiss. How will circumstances be different in the current case where debtor has less monthly income?
Debtor(s):
Darlene Futrel Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Darlene Futrel Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Christopher J Langley
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
According to Debtor's schedules, there is only about $78,000 in equity based upon a stated value of $920,000 against liens of $842,000. Assuming costs of sale of 8%, or $73,600, the maximum equity for the estate would be only $4,400. In Debtor's prior case filed earlier this year, Debtor had received an offer of $915,000, which fell through. At $915,000, there would be no equity for the estate.
The trustee has not joined in the Motion or filed his own motion for extension of the stay.
Debtor(s):
Viet Duc Bui Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Viet Duc Bui Represented By
Christopher J Langley
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01095 Albert-Sheridan v. Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Parks, LLC
FR: 5-16-19
Docket 35
SPECIAL NOTE: Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice filed 5/6/2019 - td (5/14/2019)
May 16, 2019
The court is inclined to deny the motion as moot in light of Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 41
This adversary was commenced with the filing of the Complaint on May 29, 2018. Defendant filed its answer on June 29, 2019 [docket #6]. The instant motion for summary judgment ("Motion") was filed on March 8, 2019 [docket #35] and was properly served upon Plaintiff. Pursuant to LBR
7056-1, a responsive pleading had to be filed within 21 days of today's hearing or April 25, 2019. Plaintiff did not file a responsive pleading by April 25, 2019. Instead, on May 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed Notice of [Voluntary] Dismissal Without Prejudice [docket #48] ("Dismissal Notice"). Though Plaintiff cited no rule or other legal authority in the Dismissal Notice, the applicable rule is Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41, which applies to bankruptcy adversary proceedings pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
10:30 AM
Procedure 7041.
Voluntary Dismissal of Action Without Court Order
Rule 41 permits a plaintiff the right to voluntarily dismiss an action without court order or consent of the defendant under certain circumstances. Specifically Rule 41(a)(1)(i) provides that plaintiff "dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment". (emphasis added)
Here, because Plaintiff filed the notice of dismissal after both the filing of an answer and a motion for summary judgment, the Dismissal Notice is ineffective under Rule 41(a)(1).
Voluntary Dismissal of Action With Court Order
Rule 41(a)(2) provides that "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper."
The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the District Court, and its order will not be reversed unless the District Court has abused its discretion." Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Under FRCP 41(a)(2), "If a notice of summary judgment has been filed, the court can grant a dismissal at its discretion." Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988). "When a plaintiff seeks to avoid an adverse decision on a motion for summary judgment, dismissal is inappropriate." LeFer v. Murry, 978 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1186 (D. Mont. 2013)(citations omitted).
"In ruling on a motion for voluntary dismissal, the District Court must consider whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal... Plain legal prejudice, however, does not result simply when defendant faces the prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some tactical advantage." Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Plain legal prejudice "means
10:30 AM
‘prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument."
Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Ninth Circuit plainly stated the standard for the application of Rule 41(a)(2) as follows:
"A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2)4 unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir.1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir.1982).
We have previously held that 'legal prejudice' means 'prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.' Westlands, 100 F.3d at 97. In so holding, we also explained that '[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or because “the threat of future litigation ... causes uncertainty' does not result in plain legal prejudice. Id. at 96–97. Also, plain legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal. Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145." 263 F.3d at 976.
Applying the foregoing standard to the circumstances here, the court can discern no plain legal prejudice that would be suffered by Defendant by the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. The fact that Defendant could face a second lawsuit or incur fees in connection therewith is insufficient.
June 13, 2019
Grant the Motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendant Icon Owner Pool 1. The granting of the Motion effectively moots Plaintiff's request for dismissal of the adversary proceeding pursuant to FRCP 41.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
10:30 AM
At the hearing held on May 16, 2019, Movant articulated a colorable legal prejudice that it could suffer if the adversary were dismissed (at Plaintiff's request) without adjudication of the Motion. The court allowed Movant additional time to brief the issue of legal prejudice.
The court incorporates by reference herein, the legal authorities discussed in its May 16, 2019 tentative ruling re the issue or legal prejudice in the context of a Rule 41 request for dismissal. The court also adopts and incorporates by reference herein the legal authorities and analysis set for in Movant's supplemental brief filed on May 23, 2019 [docket #52].
Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that Movant may suffer legal prejudice, i.e., deprivation of a claim for malicious prosecution against Plaintiff, if the adversary proceeding is dismissed without adjudication of the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
UPDATE -- FOLLOWING COURT'S REVIEW OF PLEADINGS FILED BY PLAINTIFF ON JUNE 11, 2019
The foregoing tentative ruling is augmented as follows:
Grant partial summary adjudication as to the first and second claims for relief because, as a matter of law, 15 USC 1692d does not apply to business debt -- only consumer transactions and Civil Code 1942.5 does not apply to commercial leases -- only dwellings [ "Dwelling defeined as a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place . . . Civil Code 1940(c). Plaintiff does not provide any argument or legal authority to the contrary.
Deny motion as to the third claim for relief -- violation of the automatic stay. First, the BNC notice shows that Movant was served with notice of the bankruptcy on February 20, 2018 and Plaintiff has submitted a notice to pay
10:30 AM
rent or quit that is addressed to both the lessee and her in April 2018. Accordingly, there is a triable issue of material fact as to 1) whether Movant knew of the bankruptcy prior to April 2018 and addressed the notice to Plaintiff anyway in April 2018.
As to the preclusive effect of partial adjudication, that is an issue that will be decided in state court should Movant pursue a malicious prosecution action in the future. For Rule 41 purposes, Movant has sufficiently stated a potential legal prejudice.
The court will deem the June 11, 2019 pleadings by Plaintiff to be responsive to the Motion. The court will not, however, grant any additional time because Plaintiff was properly served with the Motion and made a decision to file an improper Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41 rather than timely file an opposition. Stated otherwise, she had a fair opportunity to oppose the Motion and to timely file a response 21 days before the original hearing date, but declined to do so.
In light of the foregoing, the court is inclined to grant Plaintiff an order dismissing the third claim for relief (stay violation) without prejudice for 12 months -- after 12 months from today's hearing the dismissal will be deemed with prejudice.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels
10:30 AM
Eric P Israel Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01095 Albert-Sheridan v. Coast Huntington Business Centers et al
Retaliatory Eviction 3. Violation of Automatic Stay
FR: 11-15-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 5-9-19; 6-6-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice filed 5/6/2019 - td (5/14/2019)
September 6, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; Updated status report must be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are not required; Trustee/plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 20, 2018
Continue status conference to January 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a timely and fully completed joint status report that addresses all relevant issues, including without limitation, status of service of summons and complaint on defendants Icon Owner Pool 1 and LA Business Parks LLC*, satisfaction of meet and confer requirements, discovery needs, etc (see joint status report form for additional details and disclosures). A joint status report must be filed no later than January 17, 2019. (XX)
As Plaintiff asserts actions against her or her property in violation of her automatic stay, the trustee has no standing. Even if he did, he has
10:30 AM
abandoned it to Plaintiff. Further, as bankruptcy law (11 U.S.C. 362(a)) is implicated the matter must be adjudicated in this court.
*Defendant Coast Huntington Business Centers has filed a motion to dismiss which is set for hearing on today's 10:30 a.m. calendar and is unopposed.
The tentative ruling is to grant the motion to dismiss as to such defendant. [See Calendar #45]
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
January 31, 2019
In light of the unilateral status report filed by defendant Icon, this status conference shall be continued to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. and an updated joint status report must be filed by February 26, 2019. The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not be Dismissed Due to Failure to Prosecute ("OSC"), which OSC shall also be set for hearing on March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
June 6, 2019
Continue pretrial conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as the continued hearing on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required.
June 13, 2019
In light of the partial granting of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the pretrial conference will go off calendar.
10:30 AM
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Coast Huntington Business Centers Pro Se
Icon Owner Pool 1, LA Business Represented By
Robert S Gebhard
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 1112(b); Request for Any Quarterly Fees Due and Payable to the
U.S. Trustee at the Time of the Hearing
Docket 53
OFF CALENDAR: United States Trustee's Voluntary Dismissal of Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112 filed 6/10/2019 - td (6/10/2019)
June 13, 2019
Deny motion as it appears Debtor is current with quarterly fees and has now filed all outstanding monthly operating reports.
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, or if the UST withdraws the Motion, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on UST's motion to dismiss case.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
June 13, 2019
Claims Bar Date: 8/22/19 (notice to creditors by 6/20/19)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: 8/29/19 (no extensions will be granted)
Continued Status Conf: 9/12/19 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report due: 8/29/19 -- waived if Plan/DS timely filed
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this status conference are not required -- the court will issue its own order re the same.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion or Order Directing Joint Administration of Related Cases Under Rule 101(b) Entered 3/28/2019. Lead Case 8:19-10893-ES Jointly Administered with Member Case 8:19-10944-ES. See Lead Case SPN Investments, Inc., Case No.
8:19-10893-ES - td (5/21/2019)
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on UST's motion to dismiss case.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
SPN IP LLC Represented By
Christopher J Langley
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01112 Herrera et al v. Blair
Docket 36
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Grant motion with leave to amend. Amended complaint must be filed by July 12, 2019; responsive pleading must be filed by August 12, 2019. The court abstains under 1334(c)(1) from adjudicating the validity of the will or, if there is no will, intestate succession.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Standard for Judgment on the Pleadings - FRCP 12(c)
After the pleadings are closed, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. FRCP 12(c) as adopted by FRBP 7012(b). A motion under FRCP 12(c) challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings, similar to that of a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. In deciding a FRCP 12(c) motion, the court applies the same standards applicable to a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. Cafasso, U.S. ex. rel. v General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054, n. 4 (9th Cir. 2011).
"Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law... However, judgment on the pleadings is improper when the district court goes beyond the pleadings to resolve an issue; such a proceeding must properly be treated
2:00 PM
as a motion for summary judgment." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). "On a 12(c) motion, the court considers ‘the complaint, the answer, any written documents attached to them, and any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case.’ " L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir. 2011).
Twombly/Iqbal "plausibility standards are applicable to FRCP 12(c) motions. Chavez v. U.S., 683 F.2d 1102, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2012). In Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007), the Supreme Court established more stringent notice-pleading standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A plaintiff is required to provide more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ...." Id. The plaintiff must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
The Court cannot find that the Motion should be granted without leave to amend due to the will's apparent non-compliance with California Probate Code Section 6110(c)(1)
Movant argues that the will filed in connection with the Complaint is invalid on its face because it was witnessed by only one party and that, under California Probate Code 6110, two witness signatures are required. Indeed, Cal. Prob. Code 6110(c)(1) provides that "except as provided in paragraph (2), the will shall be witnessed by . . . at least two persons " (emphasis
2:00 PM
added). Clearly, the proffered will has only one signature and, on the face of the document it would appear not to satisfy 6110(c)(1). However, noncompliance with 6110(c)(1) is not dispositive of validity of the will.
Paragraph 2 of 6110(c) provides that if the will is not signed by two witnesses, the will may be deemed to comply with 6110(c)(1) if "the proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time the testator signed the will, the testator intended the will to constitute the testator's will." Though the Complaint is silent as to factual allegations re 6110(c)(2), the liberal leave to amend policy of this Circuit would dictate that leave should be granted to allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (made applicable to this proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015) provides that a party may amend the party’s pleading by leave of court and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit applies this rule with "extreme liberality." Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997).
As to Movant's argument that Plaintiff has submitted no "proof or evidence that the will is enforceable or could be enforceable under California Probate Section 6110(c)(2) . . ." and no "declarations or evidence to support any of thier assertions," the Court would have have considered as part of this Motion any evidence or documents outside the four corners of the Complaint and exhibits. To do so, would convert the matter to a summary judgment motion.
The Court notes that if the Complaint is amended to add facts relevant to 6110(c)(2), this court should abstain from determining the validity of the will under the so-called "probate exception rule."
While 28 U.S.C. § 1334 vests federal jurisdiction of bankruptcy cases and related proceedings, there is a "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006); see also, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (district courts may refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to bankruptcy courts). Thus, “the probate exception prevents a federal court from probating a will, administering a decedent's estate, or disposing of property in the custody of a state probate court.” Goncalves By & Through
2:00 PM
Goncalves v. Rady Children's Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017); Marshall, 547 U.S. at 311-12. The probate exception is limited, however, and “it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.” Marshall, 547 U.S. at 312.
Satisfaction of Prob. Code Section 6110(c)(2) should be determined by the state probate court.
The Court cannot make a finding of lack of standing pursuant to California Probate Code 6402 alone.
Movant argues if the will is deemed in valid, Plaintiff Yvonne Herrara is the Decedent's step-daughter and not his natural or adopted daughter, and therefore is not a relative in line for intestate succession under Cal. Prob.
Code 6402. This is true. However, Cal. Prob. Code 6454 provides that for purposes of determining intestate succession, a foster child or step-child may qualify if "(a) the relationship began during the person's minority and continued throughout the joint lifetimes of the person and the the person's . . . stepparent," and "(b) it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the . . . stepparent would have adopted the person but for the legal barrier."
The determination of the applicability and satisfaction of Probate Section 6454 should be determined by the state probate court.
Abstention under 28 USC 1334(c)(1)
28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) provides that a bankruptcy court may abstain from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11 when to do so would be in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law.
The Court believes it would be appropriate for the California probate court to decide the validity of the will as well as any intestate succession issues. Once such determination is made, the Court can adjudicate the specific allegations under 523(a).
2:00 PM
Debtor(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly H. Zinser
Defendant(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly H. Zinser
Plaintiff(s):
Yvonne Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Dylan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Ethan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kristine A Thagard Chad V Haes
10:00 AM
(Set at SC held 9-20-18)
FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19; 3-27-19; 4-30-19
Docket 544
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 6/26/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 6/4/2019 (XX) - td (6/4/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
FR: 9-20-18 (Per Order Entered 10/16/18)
FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19; 3-27-19; 4-30-19
Docket 558
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 6/26/2019 at 10:00 a.m.,
Per Order Entered 6/4/2019 (XX) - td (6/4/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
(B) Entry of Order confirming Third Amended Chapter 11 Plan
Docket 721
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 6/26/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order
Entered 6/5/2019 (XX) - td (6/5/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
Docket 723
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 6/26/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 6/5/2019 (XX) - td (6/5/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 5-9-19
Docket 61
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Movant(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Evan Rothman
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 4-18-19; 5-9-19
Docket 67
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 7-27-17; 9-21-17, 4-12-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19;
5-9-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Approving Woodlawn Colonial, L.P.'s Motion to Stay Adversary Proceeding Until Completion of Appellate Review of the Bankruptcy Court Order Approving Sale of Rights to State Court Appeal Entered 1/24/18 - td (1/24/2018)
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17; 8-31-17;
4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19
Docket 73
CONTINUED: Continued to 9/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 6/14/2019 (XX) - td (6/14/2019)
March 12, 2019
Continue status conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date. Court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not be Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction in light of the assignment of this adversary to Debtors pursuant to global settlement between Trustee and Debtors approved by the Court at hearing on January 31, 2019. The OSC hearing will also be held on April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Once the adversary proceeding is dismissed, Debtors will be free to initiate new litigation against the defendant in any nonbankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Turko United LLC Pro Se
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Movant(s):
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By
9:30 AM
Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 3-12-15; 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17;
8-31-17; 4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19
Docket 59
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 9/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 6/14/2019 (XX) - td (6/14/2019)
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
9:30 AM
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson
9:30 AM
Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 7/18/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Entered 6/7/2019 (XX) - td (6/7/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01118 Smith, III v. Swindell et al
FR: 11-8-18; 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19
Docket 3
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 as to Defendants Casey Swindell and Kimberly Amaral Only filed 8/29/18 - td (8/30/2018). Order Granting Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Defendant David P. Hutchens Lodged in LOU on 6/11/19, Order # 8292660. Patrick Swindell will be last defendant remaining - td (6/11/2019)
November 8, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a formal motion to serve complaint by publication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.7004(c). Informal request in a declaration (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 6, 2018
No updated status report filed -- plaintiff's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of the adversary and why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file a status report.
9:30 AM
January 31, 2019
Continue status conference to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by February 25, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
March 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. ; updated Status Report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending mediation, continue status conference to June 20, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 6, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this status conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to July 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in light of Plaintiff's pending motion for entry of default judgment as to Patrick Swindell, which motion is under review by the court. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Defendant(s):
Patrick Swindell Pro Se
David P Hutchens Pro Se
Casey Swindell Pro Se
Kimberly Amaral Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Declaratory Relief (Successor Liability); 2. Intentional Fraudulent Transfer; 3. Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; 4. Preservation of Avoided Transfer; 5.
Turnover of Assets; 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 7. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; 8. Unjust Enrichment (Another Summons Issued 12/6/10)
FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 4-4-19; 4-16-19
Docket 55
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 8/22/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 6/17/2019 (XX) - td (6/17/2019)
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Pro Se
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01071 Albert-Sheridan v. Education Credit Management Corporation et al
FR: 7-10-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 3-21-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
July 10, 2018 | |
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 10/15/18 |
Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: | 11/16/18 |
Pretrial Conference Date: | 12/20/18 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) |
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: | 11/13/18 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
March 21, 2019
This matter will be trailed to today's 10:30 a.m. calendar.
June 20, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Sept. 30, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
9:30 AM
(XX)
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Nov. 7, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Education Credit Management Represented By Scott A Schiff
The Education Resources Institute Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01061 Marshack (TR) v. Patow et al
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Another Summons Issued on 5/31/19. New Status Conference Set for 8/15/19 at 9:30 a.m. (xxx) - liz (5/31/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
James Christopher Patow Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Defendant(s):
James Christopher Patow Pro Se Alvin and Linda Patow 2006 Trust Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
FR: 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 4-18-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
No tentative ruling. This tentative will be trailed to the 2:00 p.m. calendar along with the Motion to Dismiss
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Pro Se
Cheri Lynn Natzic Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
Kevin Meek
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01172 Pacific Western Bank v. Gaglio et al
FR: 12-6-18; 12-20-18
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference to 8/1/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 5/6/2019 (XX) - gkd/td (5/9/2019)
December 20, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: May 3, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: June 20, 2019 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: June 6, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Pro Se
Jack G. Gaglio Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Plaintiff(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01169 Ree v. Jeong
FR: 12-6-18; 2-7-19; 3-12-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
December 6 2018
Continue status conference to February 7, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss. Updated status report not required for the February 7, 2019 hearing. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 20, 2019
In light of Plaintiff's failure to timely file a second amended complaint, the adversary proceeding is dismissed. Defendant to lodge an order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Seunghwan Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Joint Debtor(s):
Amy Park Jeong Represented By Hyong C Kim
Plaintiff(s):
Jin Ree Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01044 Van der Laan v. Phong
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Continue Status Conference to August 22, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Jacob Van der Laan Represented By John E Lattin
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01058 Euretig et al v. Pate
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
This adversary proceeding will be stayed in light of the pending state court action, with periodic status conferences. Continue this status conference to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. An updated status report re the status of the state court action must be filed by December 12, 2019. (XX)
Special note: It is highly likely that once the updated status report is filed, the December 19, 2019 status conference will be continued without the necessity for appearances.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are waived; Plaintiff to lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Sean Pate Represented By
Anerio V Altman
Defendant(s):
Sean Pate Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Gary Edelston Represented By Jayne A Peeters
9:30 AM
Earl B Abramson Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Sunwest Trust Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Oxnard Street, LLC Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Michal Gutentag Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Barbara Edelston Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Beth Rakow Represented By
Jayne A Peeters
Jay Rakow Represented By
Jayne A Peeters
Sunwest Trust Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Louis Schwartz Represented By Jayne A Peeters
David P Abramson Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Rachel Euretig Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Andrew Euretig Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Zvi Gutentag Represented By
Jayne A Peeters
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC VS.
DEBTOR FR: 5-30-19
Docket 44
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 7/18/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order
Entered 6/7/2019 (XX) - td (6/7/2019)
May 30, 2019
The parties are ordered to meet and confer re a possible resolution prior to the hearing. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing.
Available continued dates are June 13, 2019 and June 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Jose P. Hurtado Represented By Richard G Heston
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jeffrey W. Jones Represented By Tina H Trinh
Joint Debtor(s):
Catherine B. Pham Represented By Tina H Trinh
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Represented By
Austin P Nagel
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
DIODORA MENDOZA VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 50
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant the motion; however, relief from stay is not granted to allow Movant to levy or seek recovery against property of the bankruptcy estate during the pendency of the chapter 13 case including, without limitation, earnings.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required if Movant accepts the tentative ruling. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Edgar Guzman Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz
Movant(s):
Diodora Mendoza Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
John F Nicholson
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS.
DEBTOR FR: 4-4-19
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
The parties are to advise the court regarding the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Angie M Marth Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By
10:00 AM
Erin P Moriarty
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 37
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stacey White Kinney Represented By Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as successor Represented By
Jennifer C Wong
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
LISA WILL, TRUSTEE OF THE ZIMMERMAN LIVING TRUST DATED DECEMBER 19, 1991
VS. DEBTOR FR: 5-7-19
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion with 4001(a)(3) waiver; Movant has stated sufficient cause under 362(d)(1) to allow the probate matter to proceed in state court. The court makes no findings re bad faith.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
The subject matter involves all state law issues and involves multiple nondebtor parties that should be resolved in state court sooner rather than later. Debtor has stated no persuasive reason why the litigation should not proceed.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Movant(s):
Lisa Will Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Todd Matthew Alexander Represented By Alon Darvish
Joint Debtor(s):
Monika Bernadetta Alexander Represented By Alon Darvish
Movant(s):
21st Mortgage Corporation Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Diane Weifenbach
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Continue hearing to July 18, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to correct defective service -- Debtor's attorney of record was not served as required by LBR 4001-1. (XX)
Tentative ruling for 7/18/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required if Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
10:00 AM
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gregg Michael Snider Represented By
R Gibson Pagter Jr.
Movant(s):
Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[WEILAND GOLDEN GOODRICH LLP, COUNSEL FOR THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 88
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019 (Updated)
Allow interim fees and expenses as requested; overrule Debtor Laura Case's objections.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
The court has reviewed every time entry in Exhibit 1 of the Application and cannot make a finding that any of the fees are excessive or unreasonable.
The court has reviewed Debtor's objections to the Application and notes that Debtor does not identify any specific instances of excessive fees but rather argues in general that an unspecified amount of fees should be disallowed because Debtor offered to pay all claims and administrative expense early in the case after its re-opening . However, Debtor's opposition only references one communication from attorney Michael Jones on April 13, 2019 [Opposition, Exhibit B], some six months after the chapter 7 trustee was reappointed. However, the Applicant provides a more complete chronology of the settlement events that transpired [Reply, Exhibits 2-14] .
10:30 AM
The court can take judicial notice of the fact that the hearing on approval of trustee's motion to sell the litigation claim was continued at least half a dozen times from October 2018 to May 2019 to accommodate participation of Debtor in the sale negotiation process.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at today's hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
James E. Case Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura M. Case Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19; 5-30-19
Docket 165
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation Regarding Payment of Chapter 13 Trustee Fees Resulting from Settlement Agreement and Resolving Chapter 13 Trustee's Comments on or Objections to Employment and Fee Application and 9019 Motion filed 5/29/19; Order Approving Stipulation Lodged in LOU on 5/29/19, Order #8192148 - td (5/29/2019)
May 30, 2019
This matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
June 20, 2019
In light of the court-approved stipulation, approve nunc pro tunc employment application.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Applicant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19; 5-30-19
Docket 169
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation Regarding Payment of Chapter 13 Trustee Fees Resulting from Settlement Agreement and Resolving Chapter 13 Trustee's Comments on or Objections to Employment and Fee Application and 9019 Motion filed 5/29/19; Order Approving Stipulation Lodged in LOU on 5/29/19, Order #8192148 - td (5/29/2019)
May 30, 2019
This matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
June 20, 2019
In light of the court-approved stipulation, grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 5-30-19
Docket 164
OFF CALENDAR: Chapter 13 Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal filed 6/17/2019 - td (6/18/2019)
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation Regarding Payment of Chapter 13 Trustee Fees Resulting from Settlement Agreement and Resolving Chapter 13 Trustee's Comments on or Objections to Employment and Fee Application and 9019 Motion filed 5/29/19; Order Approving Stipulation Lodged in LOU on 5/29/19, Order #8192148 - td (5/29/2019)
May 30, 2019
This matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
June 20, 2019
In light of the court-approved stipulation, grant motion on terms provided for in such stipulation.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Cl. #4-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12110-ES)
Cl. #9-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12106-ES)
Cl. #7-1 Slyvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:12-12109-ES)
Cl. #10-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12112-ES)
FR: 3-12-19; 4-11-19
Docket 289
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 7/18/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 6/10/2019 (XX) - td (6/10/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
FR: 8-17-17; 11-16-17; 2-1-18; 5-24-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-13-18;
4-18-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 17, 2017
Claims Bar Date: Oct. 23, 2017 (notice by 8/21/17)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl. Stmt: Nov. 1, 2017
Continued Status Conference: Nov. 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated
by 11/2/17 stmt has been case the no filed and the
be continued to stmt hearing. (XX)
status report to be filed unless the plan/discl. timely filed, in which status report need be status conference will the date of the discl.
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of the Debtor to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
November 16, 2017
Continue status conference to February 1, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report must be filed by January 18, 2018 unless a timely filed disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of a status report will be waived. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
February 1, 2018
Continue status conference to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed no later than May 10, 2018, unless a plan and disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of an updated report will not be required. Extend deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement to May 1, 2018. No further continuances will be granted. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
May 31, 2018
Continue chapter 11 status conference to July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; the
10:30 AM
court shall issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization or file a disclosure statement. The hearing on the OSC shall also be held on July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This court previously indicated that no further extensions of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement beyond May 1, 2018 would be granted. Debtor and its counsel apparently view the court's deadlines as mere suggestions. Nothing in Debtor's current status report justifies any further extensions. Debtor has basically "parked" itself for approximately one year in this noncomplex chapter 11 case and cavalierly intends to remained parked for at least 17 months without filing a plan and disclosure statement. This will not happen.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
July 19, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 6, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
September 20, 2018
This case has now been pending for more than a year. The status reports continue to sing the same tune about reaching a resolution with the IRS but virtually no progress has been made since the last status conference. Time is up. If a stipulation is not reached with the IRS or an adversary filed by October 15, 2018, the case will be dismissed. Given the number of
10:30 AM
continuances and time that has been granted to Debtor and the IRS with no results, the court no longer sees the need to set an Order To Show Cause re Dismissal. The case will simply be dismissed on October 16, 2018 absent a filed stipulation or adversary proceeding due to inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization.
December 13, 2018
Dismiss case due to inability of Debtor to propose a plan of reorganization. The case has been pending for 18 months without the filing of a plan and disclosure statement as previously ordered by the court. The incorporates its comments set forth in its September 20, 2018 tentative ruling (see above).
April 18, 2019
Dismiss case.
This case has now been pending for nearly two years with no contemplated plan of reorganization. Debtor wishes to continue to prop up this empty case up for the sole purpose of executing an agreement with an apparently reluctant IRS. The IRS apparently seems to have no sense of urgency regarding this case. Counsel for the IRS represented to the court on November 13, 2018 that approval from D.C. of the settlement should be obtained within 60-90 days. However, five months later, there is no approval in sight. Debtor will need to resolve its issues with the IRS outside bankruptcy.
June 20, 2019
In light of status report filed on 6/13/19 confirming approval of Debtor's settlement with the IRS by the Dept. of Justice [docket #144], continue this status conference to July 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by or before July 11, 2019 if a stipulation between Debtor and the government has not been filed by such date. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
Jerome Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
Docket 121
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Tri-Star Construction and Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
FR: 4-18-18, 5-16-19
Docket 66
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Special note: The parties should continue to pursue an amicable resolution. Absent such a resolution, a continued hearing will be set to permit the creditor to provide documentary evidence of attorneys fees along with task descriptions. The note permits reasonable attorneys fees. Debtor is entitled to object to the reasonableness of the fees. The court cannot ascertain the reasonableness of the fees without a breakdown of the fees by task.
June 20, 2019
The parties are to advise the court regarding the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 39
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Sustain objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
10:30 AM
The proof of claim asserts a $5,000,000 claim and lists as the basis for such a large claim, a vague reference to "fraudulent transfers of interests in real property." No specifics re the alleged fraudulent transfers or the affected property is provided in either the proof of claim or the response to the Objection to Claim.
In the single-page opposition filed by the claimant, Ronen Armony, it is stated that the claim is based upon "causes of action, including the avoidance of voidable transfers . . . being asserted . . . in the pending San Bernardino Superior Court lawsuit known as Armony v. Kanter, Case no. CIV- VS1101628." No other facts or evidence substantiating the claim are provided. Stated otherwise, the opposition sheds no more light on the basis of the claim than did the proof of claim.
Debtor has presented evidence that appears to call to refute the vaguely described basis for the claim. For example, Debtor has provided the deposition testimony of claimant Ronen Armony from the Orange County Superior Court case, Armony v. Kanter , Case no. 30-2016-00870876-CU- FR-CJC. In that deposition, Mr. Armony appears not to know or understand the basis of his $5M claim against Debtor. Objection, Exh. 1, Deposition at pp. 137-141.
In sum, Debtor has provided sufficient evidence to shift the burden to the claimant to establish the validity of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Claimant has failed to meet that burden.
Debtor(s):
VV Hospitality LLC Represented By Yoon O Ham
Thomas F Nowland
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Robert P Goe
10:30 AM
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 52
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Motion filed 6/6/2019 - td (6/7/2019)
May 7, 2019
[The matter remains under review by the court. A tentative ruling may be posted before the hearing].
Debtor(s):
Michelle Renee Gillespie Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 12-20-18
Docket 21
ADVANCED: Status Conference Hearing Advanced to 4/4/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 3/27/2019 (XX) - td (3/27/2019)
December 20, 2018
The court is inclined to continue this hearing as a status conference for 180 days, i.e., until June 20, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow the litigation to conclude. Debtor shall file an updated report regarding the status of the litigation by or before June 6, 2019. (XX)
Comments:
The court has reviewed Debtor's pleading regarding the reasonableness of the exemption. However, the doctor's report providing information regarding surgical costs does not indicate if any of such costs will be covered by insurance.
The trustee asserts that he has no objection to the exemption in the cause of action -- only in the ultimate judgment proceeds, if any. It, therefore, seems premature for the court to make any determination regarding the extent of the exemption until there is an actual recovery.
10:30 AM
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Russell Lane Represented By
Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 3-19-19
Docket 83
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 7/18/19 at 10:30 a.m.; See Notice of
Hearing filed 5/30/19, Document #130 (XX) - td (5/30/2019)
March 19, 2019
Continue hearing to April 11, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to file an amended disclosure statement (DS) by March 26, 2019; response to amended DS to be filed by April 2, 2019, 2019; reply by April 5, 2019.
Court's Comments re the DS:
DS, pg.11: Debtor needs to clearly disclose the identity of its current shareholders (owners). On the one hand, Debtor states that Vvon Inc. purchased all the shares of Debtor postpetiton. However, Debtor also states that it elected to become an S Corporation. Assuming 26 CFR 1.1361-1(a)(1) and 1.1361-1(f) applies to Debtor, a C corporation is ineligible to be a shareholder of an S corporation. Debtor needs to address this issue.
DS, pp. 22-24: The treatment of Classes 2F-2I should reflect the court's ruling re Debtor's objection to such claims. Also, regarding the treatment of Classes 2F-2I, what happens to equipment not picked up by the Effective Date or August 1, 2019?
10:30 AM
DS, pg. 25 and Exh. 3: There is an inconsistency regarding the monthly payment to Class 4a. On page 25 of the DS, the monthly amount is stated as
$2,083/mo but mathematically the amount should be $2,149 ($128,940 x 60 mos) as indicated in the Plan.
DS, pg. 28: Neither the DS or the Plan discloses the compensation to be paid to insider management postconfirmation. Specifically, Sec. 1129(a)(5)
requires that a plan disclose "the identity of any insider that will be employed or retained by the reorganized debtor, and the nature of any compensation for such insider." (emphasis added).
DS, pp. 35-36: There is a typo at on p. 35 at line 23 -- the "0" should deleted from 1129(a)(8). On p. 36, line 2, there should be a cross-reference to the discussion of the Absolute Priority Rule in Section H at pp. 46-47 , and explaining that the New Value Exception Rule discussed in Section H provides a common law mechanism for satisfying the "fair and equitable" requirement of 1129(b)(2).
DS, pg. 47: The discussion at lines 6-16 seems to suggest that the Absolute Priority Rule does no apply to equity interest received postpetition. This analysis is inconsistent with 1129(b) which makes no distinction between prepetition acquired equity and postpetition acquired equity. Absent convincing legal authority supporting Debtor's position, the analysis is misleading and should be modified to disclose that Class 5 interest holders will be required to present evidence of "new value" at the time of the plan confirmation hearing if cram down becomes necessary.
DS, pg. 53: Re Exh.2, liquidation analysis, "costs" of liquidation are estimated at 7% ($2,358) of the value of the unencumbered asset
( $33,675). However, Debtor later adds another liquidation cost of $3,000 (auction costs). Why? If the liquidation costs does not include auction costs, what does it include?
Comments re Opposition to Approval of DS
Objection of Dogus Media: The plan is not patently unconfirmable. It could be determined to be unconfirmable IF an impaired class does not
10:30 AM
accept the plan, no impaired class accepts the plan and a junior class (Class 6) does not provide new value. This is an issue to be addressed at confirmation should cram down become necessary.
Objection of US Trustee: The court believes it has addressed this limited objection in its Comment 6 above.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 10-25-18; 3-7-19; 3-19-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
October 25, 2018 [UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING]
Deadline to file plan/disclosure stmt: Jan. 17, 2019
Continued status conference: Feb. 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated status report due: Jan. 24, 2019 (this requirement is waived if Debtor
timely files plan/disclosure stmt)
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 19, 2019
No tentative ruling -- outcome will depend upon disposition of #22 on today's calendar (approval of disclosure statement).
10:30 AM
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to July 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of Debtor's disclosure statement. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 168
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 76
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Docket 78
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
10:30 AM
David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues:
In light of Debtor's prior unsuccessful chapter 11 case and ultimate dismissal on the basis of bad faith, what are the changed circumstances that will result in a successful end to this case?
Why has Debtor been unable to pay mortgage payments since 2016?
On his Schedule I, Debtor lists monthly income of $15,000. Has Debtor actually grossed this amount since the filing in December 2018?
On his Schedule J, Debtor lists monthly expenses for water/sewage/garbage collection in the amount of $2,000, telephone/cell/internet/satellite in the amount of $2500 and electricity in the amount of $500. An explanation of monthly utility expenses of $5,000 will be required.
Claims bar date: 5/20/19 (notice to creditors by 3/20/19) Deadline to file plan/disc. stmt: 5/30/19
10:30 AM
Continued status conference: 6/20/19 at 10:30am; updated status report
plan and disc which case the report will be
must be filed by 6/6/19 unless a stmt have been timely filed, in requirement of an updated waived. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to August 8, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of disclosure statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels
10:30 AM
Docket 19
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing §109(g) Entered 5/21/2019 - td (5/21/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
James Ray Peterson Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C §1112(B); Request for any Quarterly Fees Due and Payable to the U.S.
Trustee at the Time of the Hearing
(Affects SPN IP, LLC)
Docket 62
NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion if UST quarterly fees have not been paid.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Movant(s):
United States Trustee (SA) Represented By
Nancy S Goldenberg
10:30 AM
Docket 23
NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion in part as follows: Debtor's counsel, Thin V Doan, must 1) file a Rule 2016(b) statement by or before July 18, 2019, and 2) submit to the United States Trustee any state court or bankruptcy retainer agreements, as well as an attorney client ledger by or before July 18, 2019. The hearing on this motion will be continued to August 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. for a determination as to the reasonableness and/or disgorgement/cancellation of any fees related to this case. Movant shall file any supplemental pleading in support of the motion by or before July 25, 2019; Debtor's counsel must file any response thereto by or before August 1, 2019 and any reply by Movant must be filed by or before August 8, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is waived and Movant shall lodge an order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Lan Anh Hoang Represented By Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
Docket 21
NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion for the reasons stated in the Motion with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint suffers from the same FRCP 8 deficiencies as the original complaint. The court further incorporates by reference herein its January 24, 2019 tentative ruling regarding Defendant's motion to dismiss the original complaint as the analysis applies with equal force to the Amended Complaint. Other than a conclusory statement that the By-law created an express trust, there are no specific allegations in the Amended Complaint that is indicative of the creation of such a trust.
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
2:00 PM
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
Kevin Meek
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jill Allyn Rosoff Represented By Kelly H. Zinser
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mohammad I. Niazi Represented By Freddie V Vega
Joint Debtor(s):
Parwin Saddozai Represented By Freddie V Vega
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jean Anne Turner Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John T. Bishop Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 5
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 5/7/2019 - td (6/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Blanca Acevedo Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Charles William Hutchison Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 5/21/2019 - td (5/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Conrado P Del Rosario Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
OFF CALENDAR: Order on Debtor's Motion to Convert Case Under 11 U.S.C. §§706(a) or 1112(a) Signed 5/14/2019 - td (5/14/2019)
Debtor(s):
Michael Elliott William Sr Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 5/14/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (5/20/2019)
Debtor(s):
James Omer Hursh Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 4/23/2019 - td (4/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
Gale Lee Oliver Jr. Represented By Sunjay Bhatia
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Linda Marie Northey Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 26
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 4/22/2019 - td (4/22/2019)
Debtor(s):
Shawna Marie Fleisher Represented By Sunjay Bhatia
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Installment Payment Schedule Entered 5/31/2019 - td (6/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Pete Rios Sanchez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kriston Perry Represented By
Rabin J Pournazarian
Joint Debtor(s):
Chandra Holmes Represented By
Rabin J Pournazarian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Douglas Robert Redding Represented By Sunita N Sood
Joint Debtor(s):
Dana Marie Redding Represented By Sunita N Sood
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jeffrey Leite Represented By
Stephen Parry
Joint Debtor(s):
Vanessa J. Leite Represented By Stephen Parry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Antonio Munos Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Joint Debtor(s):
Cinthia Renee Munos Represented By Matthew D. Resnik
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Fernando Serrano Represented By Lionel E Giron
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nien T Fraser Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Emil Peter Joros Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 20
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Adrian Elizarraras Represented By David R Chase
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Telephonic Hearing
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Herminigilda Garcia Manalo Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Loren Tramontano Represented By Paul Y Lee
Joint Debtor(s):
Monique Chevalier Represented By Paul Y Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dawn Marie Baker Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ryan Phillip Jones Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandy Gee Yung Kim Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard Thomas McPhee Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Pejman Pirmoradi Represented By Alon Darvish
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kayleen R Hittesdorf Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 33
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William Raymond Harvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Joint Debtor(s):
Akram Naieharvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael P Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Joint Debtor(s):
Deborah J. Monroe Represented By Anthony P Cara
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 35
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
J. Guadalupe Zepeda Dimas Represented By James F Drake
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
FR: 3-27-18; 7-17-18; 9-25-18; 11-27-18; 1-22-19; 3-26-19; 5-21-19
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 20
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 6/20/2019 - td (6/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Richard Thomas McPhee Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 41
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jezabel Jurado Represented By Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 5-21-19
Docket 30
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19; 5-21-19
Docket 28
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 33
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
James Vea Niua Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Joint Debtor(s):
Sharon Jane Niua Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 117
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Giuseppe Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Joint Debtor(s):
Heldia F. De Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19; 5-21-19
Docket 113
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Giuseppe Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Joint Debtor(s):
Heldia F. De Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 102
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion filed 4/30/2019 - td (4/30/2019)
Debtor(s):
Julio Cesar Torres Represented By Anthony B Vigil
Joint Debtor(s):
Norma Giselle Torres Represented By Anthony B Vigil
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 1-22-19; 3-26-19; 4-23-19; 5-21-19
Docket 48
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 6/6/2019 - td (6/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 79
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ryan Correos Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Joint Debtor(s):
Samantha Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 67
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 Filed 6/11/2019 - td (6/11/2019)
Debtor(s):
Hang Nga Thi Le Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 50
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Margarita Calderon Represented By Stephen R Wade
W. Derek May
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19
Docket 111
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Justin William Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Heather Ann Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 56
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Hung Diep Represented By
Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 76
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marcella Suzanne McKenzie Represented By Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19; 5-21-19
Docket 84
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nguyen D. Uong Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 5-21-19
Docket 141
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal filed 6/17/2019 - td (6/18/2019)
Debtor(s):
Roxana Martha Kargl Represented By Matthew Rosene Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
June 26, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Douglas Paul Westfall Represented By Don Emil Brand
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline Ann Westfall Represented By Don Emil Brand
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
FR: 6-18-19
Docket 723
- NONE LISTED -
June 26, 2019 (UPDATED)
Grant Motion. Overrule the the Beitler Creditors' opposition.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
FR: 6-18-19
Docket 721
- NONE LISTED -
June 26, 2019
Due to ongoing discussions among the parties, there is no tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
(Set at SC held 9-20-18)
FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19; 3-27-19; 4-30-19; 6-18-19
Docket 544
- NONE LISTED -
December 11, 2018
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION ADAM MEISLIK
Special Note:
The evidentiary objections were reviewed using the evidentiary standard required for expert testimony in light of Judge Clarkson's Order entered on May 14, 2018 [docket #434] permitting Mr. Meislik's employment as Debtor's expert witness.
Specifically, the court considered FRE Rules 702 and 703 as well as the Advisory Committee Notes to the same regarding the appropriate application of the USSC's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms, Inc., 509 US 579 (1993) in light of the amendments to Rules 702 and 703 in 2000.
As Rule 602 (lack of personal knowledge) does not apply to expert testimony under Rule 703, all objections to the Declaration under Rule 602 are overruled.
It is well-settled that an expert, in forming an opinion, may rely on evidence that might otherwise be inadmissible, such as hearsay. See, e.g., U.S. v. Vera, 1770 F.3d 1232, 1237 ("[A]n expert witness may offer opinions
10:00 AM
based on such inadmissible testimonial hearsay, as well as any other form of inadmissible evidence, if 'experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.' Fed.R.Evid. 703").
All evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Adam Meislik are overruled except as set forth below
Objection No. Ruling:
28 Sustained: speculation -- insufficient basis for opinion
Sustained: improper legal opinion/conclusion as to impairment and fair and equitable under Bankruptcy
Code.
Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "This treatment is fair and equitable for purposes of Section 1129(b)(2)(A)". Improper
opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert
testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "Accordingly . . . to the end of paragraph 37.
Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of
expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "Accordingly . . . to the end of paragraph 39.
Improper opinion/ legal conclusion.Beyond scope of
expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
10:00 AM
Sustained. Argument. Relevance
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to first two sentences: "As demonstrated . . .
review
chapter 7 trustee for liquidation. Improper opinion/legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so
under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Overruled as to the balance of the testimony in Obj #51..
Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Sustained as to "The Plan also meets the feasibility requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. In this regard, and". Improper opinion/legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
Overruled as to the balance of the testimony in Obj. #56.
60 Sustained. Improper opinion/ legal conclusion. Beyond scope of expert testimony so review under Rule 701 is appropriate.
April 30, 2019
Comments re the Confirmation Hearing:
10:00 AM
Live Testimony
Live Testimony will be limited to the cross examination of Adam Meislik and Debtor John Bral. The scope of examination will be limited to the Declarations submitted by each gentleman in support of plan confirmation. As to Mr. Meislik's declaration, the court's tentative ruling re the evidentiary objections are as set forth above re the December 11, 2018 hearing.
Cross examination will be limited to a total of one hour per witness, inclusive of initial and follow-up questions.
Re-direct examination will be limited to 30 minutes.
Class 3 - Claim of Michelle Easton
Based upon the court's review of the evidence and argument submitted, the court's tentative ruling is as follows.
The court sees nothing improper about the treatment of Ms. Easton's claim under the plan. Simply put, in early February 2017,Ms. Easton loaned Debtor $35,000 shortly before the bankruptcy filing later that month to allow Debtor to pay a retainer for a bankruptcy attorney to handle his chapter 11 case. She received as security for the loan, a junior lien on Debtor's Irvine residence as well as a lien on Debtor's interest in one of his businesses. The note provided for monthly interest payments with the principal becoming all due and payable in December 2019. Accordingly to deposition testimony highlighted by the objecting Beitler creditors, Ms. Easton was less concerned with the maturity date than she was with receiving a security interest. The loan proceeds were, in fact, used to pay a retainer to Debtor's bankruptcy counsel. Approximately 5 months into the case, Debtor negotiated with Ms. Easton to extend the maturity date by four years. Debtor has stated that the extension was necessary because, due to the amount of litigation in the bankruptcy case, he didn't think he could pay the entire $35,000 by December 2019. The fact that Ms. Easton was a friend of Debtor's who did not perform "due diligence" that a commercial lender would perform is no moment. As for the timing of the sale of the Irvine property, the Plan provides first for the liquidation of Debtor's interest in the Mission and Westcliff LLCs,
10:00 AM
which will be determined by arbitration proceedings. If the liquidation of Debtor's interest is insufficient to pay creditors in full, Debtor intends to liquidate other nonexempt property, which could include the Irvine property.
C. 1129(a)(5)
Section 1129(a)(5) does not apply to individual debtors. In any event, objecting creditors have not provided evidence sufficient for the court to make a finding that Debtor is incapable of administering the estate postconfirmation, especially in light of the fact that the liquidation of Mission and Westcliff will occur through arbitration proceedings.
Professional Fee Claim Lien
The confirmation order to specify that the Professional Fee Claim Lien is not priming any secured claims existing on the effective date of the Plan and the Professional Fee Claim Lien will be paid after the secured claims, unless the secured claims are determined to be unsecured at a later date.
Closing Statements
Debtor will make initial closing statements -- not more than 30 minutes
Objecting Creditors will make responsive closing statements -- not more than 30 minutes
Debtor will make final closing statements -- not more than 15 minutes
June 26, 2019
Due to ongoing discussions among the parties, there is no tentative ruling.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:00 AM
FR: 9-20-18 (Per Order Entered 10/16/18)
FR: 12-11-18; 1-10-19; 1-29-19; 3-27-19; 4-30-19; 6-18-19
Docket 558
- NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Motion to Strike/Objection to Claim:
The court has not yet completed its review of this motion and related pleadings. The court understands that this motion has been pending for several months and that several hearings have been held re the same. The parties are to confirm that the issue necessitating oral testimony was ruled on by Judge Clarkson.
The court expects that this Motion might not be ruled upon prior to the Confirmation Hearing. Affects Objections to Claim #s 9, 11, 14 and 16.
Claim Objections:
Hearings to be set in 2019 re outstanding claim objections
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen
10:00 AM
Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01112 Herrera et al v. Blair
FR: 9-21-17; 5-3-18; 5-17-18; 9-6-18; 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 4-11-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 8/1/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Notice of Continuance of Pretrial Hearing filed by Fritz Firman, Attorney for Plaintiff on 5/15/19, document #44 (XX) - td (5/20/2019)
Debtor(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly Zinser
Defendant(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Yvonne Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Dylan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Ethan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kristine A Thagard Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01031 Escolar-Chua v. United States Department of Education et al
FR: 5-17-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 5-2-19
Docket 6
SPECIAL NOTE: 1) Order Approving Stip. for Discharge of Educational Loan Debt, Dismissal of Certain Defendants, and to Add Educational Credit Mgmt Corp. as a Defendant in this Adv. Proceeding Entered 4/24/2018 - td (5/8/2018). 2) Order Approving Stip. RE: Determination that Student Loan is Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8) as Between Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Only Entered 9/19/18. Judgment Entered 9/19/18. Two Defendants Remaining - td (9/19/2018)
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 8/1/19 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice Filed 6/12/19, Document #78 (XX) - td (6/12/2019)
Debtor(s):
John Paul Marc Z. Escolar-Chua Represented By
Christine A Kingston
Defendant(s):
United States Department of Represented By Elan S Levey
University of Southern California Pro Se
9:30 AM
Wells Fargo Education Financial Pro Se
Educational Credit Management Represented By
Scott A Schiff
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Represented By John H Kim
Navient Solutions, LLC Represented By Robert S Lampl
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
Plaintiff(s):
Jacqueline Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01195 La Paz Mortgage, Inc. v. Porter
FR: 1-17-19; 1-31-19; 4-11-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 7/16/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Notice of Continued Status Conference filed 5/10/2019, Document #21 (XX) - liz/td (5/10/2019)
Debtor(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
La Paz Mortgage, Inc. Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo Alan J Kessel
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Jeffrey G Jacobs
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01040 Lee v. Phong
(Another Summons Issued 4/15/2019)
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 7/16/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Notice of Continued Status Conference filed 5/21/2019, document #11 (XX) - td (5/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict Luke P Daniels
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Lee Represented By Jason K Boss
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 7/16/2019 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Court's Notice filed 5/10/2019, Document #11 (XX) - liz/td (5/10/2019)
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
FR: 1-31-19; 2-12-19; 4/18/19
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 7/16/19 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Notice of Continuance filed 4/19/2019, Document # 50
(XX) - td (4/17/2019)
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Represented By
Todd C. Ringstad
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
(Another Summons Issued 9/13/18) FR: 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4/18/19
Docket 3
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 7/16/19 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. See Notice of Continuance filed 4/19/2019, Document # 50 (XX) - td (4/17/2019)
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Pro Se
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-11-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19;
1-31-19; 2-12-19; 5-7-19
Docket 72
- NONE LISTED -
July 11, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Nastaran Maboudi to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the
9:30 AM
examination will take place outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
February 12, 2019
Nastaran Maboudi to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
May 7, 2019
No tentative ruling; Judgment creditor's attorney to advise the court re the status of this matter.
9:30 AM
July 16. 2019
Nastaran Maboud to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 7-27-17; 8-31-17; 10-19-17; 12-21-17; 4-5-18; 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-31-19;
2-12-19; 5-7-19
Docket 74
- NONE LISTED -
July 27, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
August 31, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
October 19, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
December 21, 2017
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the
9:30 AM
clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
April 5, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
June 21, 2018
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Examinee Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the clerk; the examination will thereafter be conducted outside the courtroom.
February 12, 2019
Mir Mohammad Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
May 7, 2019
No tentative ruling; Judgment creditor's attorney to advise the court re the
9:30 AM
status of this matter.
July 16. 2019
Mir Motamed to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
FR: 6-21-18; 9-13-18; 1-17-19; 1-31-19; 2-12-19; 5-7-19
Docket 130
- NONE LISTED -
June 21, 2018
No response to OSC filed. If examinees do not appear for examination on this date, they will be found to be in contempt.
September 13, 2018
Judgment creditor's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
January 31, 2019
Ms. Maboud's request to vacate the court's ruling requiring payment of $1,000 for failure to appear at a prior examination is denied as none of the reasons she cites constitute grounds for not compensating Plaintiff's counsel for appearing for her examination or for excusing Ms. Maboud from appearing at the examination. The amount must be paid within 30 days. CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 12, 2019 AT 9:30 A.M. (XX)
Special note: Plaintiff has not lodged an order re the September 13, 2018
9:30 AM
ruling and needs to do so promptly.
The motion was not properly noticed and, therefore, does not appear on the court's formal calendar;
The motion is not supported by a sworn statement under penalty of perjury as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1.
Even if the unsworn statement is accepted, it does not state grounds sufficient to warrant setting aside the court's September 13, 2018 ruling re the imposition of sanctions. This amount must be paid.
February 12, 2019
No tentative ruling
May 7, 2019
No tentative ruling; Judgment creditor's attorney to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Juy 16, 2019
No tentative ruling; Judgment creditor's attorney to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
Docket 128
- NONE LISTED -
July 16. 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
Docket 130
- NONE LISTED -
July 16. 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01031 Bral v. Samini et al
FR: 5-9-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 8/22/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Signed 6/13/2019 (XX) - td (6/13/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
Babak Samini Represented By David Choi
Matthew Hoesly Represented By David Choi
Samini Scheinberg, APC Represented By David Choi
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By
Gary A Pemberton Alan J Friedman
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01032 Ismodes, Sr v. Pariscari
3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 4) Negligence; 5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 6) Constructive Fraud; 7) CA Code 2923.55; 8) Conversion; 9) B&P 17200; And Objection to Claim Pursuant to 11 USC Section 502
FR: 5-16-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff's counsel must appear and advise the court re the legal basis for Debtor's standing to prosecute this action for fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. as such claims are property the estate over which the chapter 7 trustee has exclusive control over. The court is not aware of any abandonment of such claims by the chapter 7 trustee.
Importantly, this is not simply an objection to claim.
If Plaintiff's counsel can satisfactorily explain standing, then the following schedule will apply:
Deadline to complete discovery: Oct. 1, 2019
Deadline to attend mediation: Nov. 1, 2019
Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation: Dec. 5, 2019
Pretrial conference: Dec. 19, 2019
at 9:30 a.m.
Note: Appearances at this status conference are required.
9:30 AM
July 16, 2019
Comments re the late-filed unilateral status report filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2019:
The updated joint status report was due by order of this court on July 2, 2019. No explanation/declaration has been submitted regarding the reason for the filing of the unilateral report eight days late. The court is inclined to impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against Plaintiff's counsel for the tardily filed report.
The unilateral status report does not address the standing issue raised by the court at the May 16, 2019 status conference. In the absence of abandonment of the nine claims for relief (i.e., exclusive of the objection to claim) by the trustee or a formal motion for authority to prosecute claims belonging to the estate, the court is unaware of any legal authority supporting Debtor's standing to prosecute such claims. The trustee's unsworn statement in the unilateral report that she "does not oppose" the adversary does not confer standing. The court finds the trustee's statement perplexing.
As to the one matter Debtor could prosecute, the objection to claim, the complaint does not any facts concerning the substance of the claim itself -- not even the amount of the claim.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Defendant(s):
Brian Pariscari Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01195 La Paz Mortgage, Inc. v. Porter
FR: 1-17-19; 1-31-19; 4-11-19; 7-11-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Stipulated Final Judgment Against Jenny Porter for (1) False Representation; (2) Concealment; and (3) Fraud, Embezzlement and Larceny Entered 5/23/2019 - td (5/23/2019)
January 31, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
9:30 AM
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Represented By Christopher J Langley
Defendant(s):
Jenny Kristin Porter Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
La Paz Mortgage, Inc. Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo Alan J Kessel
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By David M Goodrich Jeffrey G Jacobs
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01040 Lee v. Phong
(Another Summons Issued 4/15/2019) FR: 7-11-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Continue Status Conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 5, 2019.
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued status conference.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict Luke P Daniels
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Lee Represented By Jason K Boss
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
FR: 5-30-19
Docket 4
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
No response to the OSC has been filed. Dismiss adversary proceeding due to lack of prosecution.
July 16, 2019
Though Plaintiff has filed a proof of service re the summons, Plaintiff has not filed a status report or a formal response to the OSC.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
(Another Summons Issued 4-8-19) FR: 7-11-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Status report has not been filed as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1.
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
JACOB VAN DER LAAN VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 67
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, filed 7/15/2019 - td (7/15/2019)
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver, except deny as to the state court cause of action for breach of contract.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
A claim for breach of contract is dischargeable.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict Luke P Daniels
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 39
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stacey White Kinney Represented By Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Katie M Parker Jennifer C Wong
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 31
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Herminigilda Garcia Manalo Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. Represented By Erin Elam Nathan F Smith
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Deny motion due to insufficient supporting evidence. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
There is insufficient evidence showing that Movant is a creditor of Debtor. All supporting contracts and UCC-1 Statements indicate that Movant is a creditor of RJ Russell Equipment, Inc., a corporate entity. None of the contracts indicate that Debtor guaranteed the debt of RJ Russell Equipment, Inc. or otherwise assumed liability for such debt. Moreover, Debtor doesn't list the property on his schedules.
No evidence of value of the subject property has been provided to show lack of adequate protection (362(d)(1)) or lack of equity (362(d)(2)).
Debtor(s):
Randall J Russell Represented By William P White
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
c/o Ferns, Adams $ A DIRECT Represented By Amanda N Ferns
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(RE: Real Property-450 South Estate Drive, Orange, CA 92869)
CAPITALSOURCE BUSINESS FINANCE GROUP VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver; deny request for other extraordinary relief [relief request #10] due to insufficient grounds stated therefor.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chirag Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
CapitalSource Business Finance Represented By Leo D Plotkin
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(RE: 22921 Savi Ranch Parkway, Yorba Linda, CA 92887)
CAPITALSOURCE BUSINESS FINANCE GROUP VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 25
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver; deny request for other extraordinary relief [relief request #10] due to insufficient grounds stated therefor.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chirag Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
CapitalSource Business Finance Represented By Leo D Plotkin
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Peter Woo Sik Kim Represented By Andrew S Bisom
Joint Debtor(s):
Sharon Soyun Kim Represented By Andrew S Bisom
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By
Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 29
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Veronica Romano Represented By Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 18
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Renee Priscilla Ruiz Represented By Michael E Hickey
Movant(s):
Yamaha Motor Finance Corp. Represented By Karel G Rocha
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 21
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and 362(d)(4) relief; deny all other extraordinary relief requested due to insufficient grounds stated therefor.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required if Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Viet Duc Bui Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
5AIF Nutmeg, LLC Represented By Michael J Gomez
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
July 16. 2019
Grant motion with all relief requested. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This is the second bankruptcy case filed on or one day before a scheduled unlawful detainer trial -- the first was filed by Debtor's spouse on February 21, 2019, the same day as the first scheduled UD trial [Case no. 19-10609ES]. This case was filed on June 12, 2019, one day prior to the re-scheduled UD trial.
This bankruptcy case was filed two days after this court entered its order granting relief from the automatic stay in favor of Movant in Debtor's spouse's case.
The 60-day notice to quit and the unlawful detainer complaint were both served and filed prior to the spouse's bankruptcy case. Under California law, service of the termination notice and the filing of the unlawful action terminates the tenancy. Neither the filing of the spouse's case or the filing of
10:00 AM
the present case reverses such circumstance.
The purpose of the bankruptcy laws is not to allow debtors to live rent-free following lease termination. According to the Motion, no rent has been paid since at least November, 2018.
This matter needs to be resolved in state court.
Debtor(s):
John Robert Lenhart Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 21
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant motion.
Debtor(s):
Donald W Baxter Represented By John R Tenery
Joint Debtor(s):
Rosie P Baxter Represented By John R Tenery
Movant(s):
Donald W Baxter Represented By John R Tenery
Rosie P Baxter Represented By John R Tenery
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01328 Askew et al v. Freedman
Docket 89
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Dismissal of Motion for Writ of Body Attachment filed 7/12/2019 - td (7/15/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jay Brett Freedman Represented By Pamela Jan Zylstra
Defendant(s):
Jay Brett Freedman Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Tamara Sue Freedman Represented By Pamela Jan Zylstra
Plaintiff(s):
David Askew Represented By Benjamin N Flint III Benjamin N Flint III Douglass Davert
Julianne Askew Represented By Benjamin N Flint III Douglass Davert
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Docket 117
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Deny motion without prejudice due to defective notice. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
There is no evidence that defendant Russell Wallace has consented to service by email, nor did Movant seek leave to serve by email. See FRCP 5(b)(2)(E) (incorporated by FRBP 7005), FRBP 9014, LBR 9013-1(a)(1).
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
10:30 AM
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 68
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stein Life Child Neurology Medical Represented By
Jeffrey B Smith
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw David Wood
10:30 AM
[MARSHACK HAYS LLP AS GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 64
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stein Life Child Neurology Medical Represented By
Jeffrey B Smith
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw David Wood
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANT TO CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 63
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stein Life Child Neurology Medical Represented By
Jeffrey B Smith
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw David Wood
10:30 AM
Docket 63
OFF CALENDAR: Withdrawal of Motion for Reconsideration of Order Approving Compromise of Controversy Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 filed 6/12/2019 - td (6/12/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Claudia Michel Estrada Represented By Luis G Torres Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
FR: 6-6-19
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
June 6, 2019
Continue hearing to July 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Debtor's Motion to Reconsider the Compromise Motion Order. (XX)
Tentative Ruling for July 16, 2019 hearing:
Based upon the court's review of the Motion to Disallow Proof of Claim #7, as well as the related Motion for Approval of the Compromise between the trustee and the defendant in the state court action, the court would be inclined to deny this Motion on the basis of lack of standing:
Debtor was properly served with notice of the motion for approval of the compromise and the opportunity to object. In fact, it is not uncommon for debtors to object to state court settlements. Here, Debtor did not object.
The Compromise Motion makes clear that the intent of the parties was to reach a settlement that would solely cover the costs of administering the chapter 7 case (trustee fees, trustee's attorneys fees, proofs of claim). The
$200,000 amount was an estimate designed for that purpose -- which is why it included a provision for the return of any amount not necessary to pay the costs of the bankruptcy estate. The unopposed settlement was not intended to fund a surplus for Debtor. Accordingly, even if the Nourmand fees are reduced to $0.00, under the Compromise, the Trustee would be required to
10:30 AM
return $125,997.50 plus $1707.58 to the Defendant. Consequently, there would be no return of a surplus to Debtor (exclusive of her exemption).
Special Note: The foregoing tentative ruling does not take into account Debtor's Reconsideration Motion or any opposition thereto as the court has not yet reviewed the same. The court is continuing this matter in order to review this Motion and the Reconsideration Motion together.
Note: No oral argument will be entertained at today's hearing in light of the continuance of the hearing to July 16, 2019.
July 16, 2019
Deny the Motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
See comments for June 6, 2019 hearing above, which the court incorporates by reference herein.
Debtor has withdrawn her Motion for Reconsideration of Order Approving Compromise of Controversy
Debtor(s):
Claudia Michel Estrada Represented By Luis G Torres Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 101
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kristina Thi Lin Represented By Jeffrey B Smith
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw Richard A Marshack
10:30 AM
[MARSHACK HAYS LLP AS GENERAL COUNSEL FOR RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 99
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kristina Thi Lin Represented By Jeffrey B Smith
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw Richard A Marshack
10:30 AM
Docket 553
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant the motion for the reasons set forth in the Motion and Reply, which the court incorporates by reference herein. The granting of the motion allowing the filing of the amended claim is without prejudice to Debtor objecting to the amended proof of claim.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
Docket 42
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant motion. Any property interests of Debtors will be abandoned back to them.
According to the law of this Circuit:
"'Abandonment' is a term of art with special meaning in the bankruptcy context. It is the formal relinquishment of the property at issue from the bankruptcy estate. Upon abandonment, the debtor's interest in the property is restored nunc pro tunc as of the filing of the bankruptcy petition."
Catalano v. C.I.R., 279 F.3d 682, 685 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added)
Special Note: This court earlier denied Movant's motion for relief from the automatic stay to enforce its lien against the subject property interests on the ground that such property interest were property of the estate. If this Motion is granted, Movant is free to re-file a motion for relief from stay. See In re Gasprom, Inc., 500 B.R. 598 (9th Cir. BAP 2013) (the automatic stay against property of the debtor applies to abandoned property absent relief from stay until the case is closed, dismissed or discharge order entered).
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 46
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael D O'Donnell Represented By David P Farrell
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
Docket 43
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant motion subject to overbid
Debtor(s):
Michael D O'Donnell Represented By David P Farrell
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael D O'Donnell Represented By David P Farrell
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
[THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. CASEY, INC., ATTORNEY FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Approve interim fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael D O'Donnell Represented By David P Farrell
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
Docket 75
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 8/8/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order
Entered 7/8/2019 (XX) - td (7/8/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stephen B Fuller Represented By Tate C Casey
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee M Fuller Represented By Tate C Casey
Movant(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
FR:5-16-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Debtor's counsel will need to address the following issues:
The projected adequate protection payments listed on Exhibit A requires explanation:
The projection provides for monthly adequate protection payments for all three properties of only $1700, yet the debt service on the Norwalk property alone is $3300 per month (1st and 2nd).
The artificially low adequate protection payments skews the projections -- in reality, Debtor will be operating at a significant deficit for all 6 months, especially after property taxes, insurance, maintenance and management fees are added.
It is not clear from the projections whether Debtor is paying $100 in management fees per month for one, two or all three properties. Who is the property manager?
The projections include rent for the Burchfield property of $1300 but there is no evidence that Debtor has procured a tenant for that property.
10:30 AM
The monthly operating report for March shows no income and no expenses for any property.
Debtor does not plan to file a cash collateral motion. So, how will the projected expenses for the properties be paid?
Claims Bar Date: July 30, 2019 (notice to creditors by 5/30/19;
declaration re non-opp must be
filed by 5/23)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl St.: Aug. 1, 2019
Continued status conference: July 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report
must be filed by July 9. 2019.
Special Note: The continued chapter 11 status conference is being continued less than 60 days to allow the court to monitor the progress of this case, including a review of the April and May MORs.
Note: Appearance at this status conference is required.
July 16, 2019
The updated status report filed in 7/9/19 does not address the following issues:
Debtor indicated at the 5/16/19 hearing that an inside buyer would be purchasing the Norwalk property and that a motion to sell would be filed within 30 days of the hearing, i.e., June 16, 2019. To date, no such motion has been filed.
Debtor represents that no cash collateral is being used -- so how are the properties being maintained? Landscaping? Property management fees?
10:30 AM
What was the source of the payment of $674 for office supplies?
Debtor represents that two of the properties generate monthly combined income of $3450 per month. However, the most recent MOR shows income of only $3214.
Why does the Burchfield property remain unrented after four months?
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
Docket 19
- NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Continue hearing to August 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow respondent to obtain an authenticated valuation that includes interior/exterior property inspection. Respondent's supplemental pleading must be filed by August 1, 2019; any reply by Debtor must be filed by August 8, 2019. Debtor shall allow access to the property upon 1 business day's notice.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Charles William Hutchison Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 0
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 5/17/2019 - td (5/20/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Orange County Builders and Design, Represented By
Michael G Spector
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
FR: 1-31-19; 2-12-19; 4/18/19; 7-11-19
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Stipulation to Continue (1) Hearing on Motion to Dismiss or Abstain from Hearing Adversary Proceeding and Related Filings filed 7/1/19 doc. #53; Order Continuing Hearings Entered 7/1/19, doc. #54(XX)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Represented By
Todd C. Ringstad
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
(Another Summons Issued 9/13/18)
FR: 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4/18/19; 7-11-19
Docket 3
CONTINUED: Stipulation to Continue (1) Hearing on Motion to Dismiss or Abstain from Hearing Adversary Proceeding and Related Filings filed 7/1/19 doc. #53; Order Continuing Hearings Entered on 7/1/19, doc. #54 (XX)
January 31, 2019
Continued to March 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
2:00 PM
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Pro Se
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 9/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 7/15/2019 (XX) - td (7/15/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01118 Smith, III v. Swindell et al
FR: 11-8-18; 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19
Docket 3
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 as to Defendants Casey Swindell and Kimberly Amaral Only filed 8/29/18 - td (8/30/2018). Order Granting Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Defendant David P. Hutchens Lodged in LOU on 6/11/19, Order # 8292660. Patrick Swindell will be last defendant remaining - td (6/11/2019)
November 8, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a formal motion to serve complaint by publication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.7004(c). Informal request in a declaration (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 6, 2018
No updated status report filed -- plaintiff's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of the adversary and why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file a status report.
9:30 AM
January 31, 2019
Continue status conference to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by February 25, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
March 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. ; updated Status Report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending mediation, continue status conference to June 20, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 6, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this status conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to July 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in light of Plaintiff's pending motion for entry of default judgment as to Patrick Swindell, which motion is under review by the court. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
9:30 AM
July 18, 2019
Court's Comments re the Pending Motion for Default Judgment re Defendant David Hutchens:
1. Service:
On November 6, 2018, this court granted Plaintiff's application for permission to serve Hutchens with the summons and complaint by publication. The application indicated that Plaintiff had previously attempted to serve Hutchens at a a post office box obtained through a skip trace search i.e., "P.O. Box 2313, Murphys, CA 92547" but that the service had been "refused." It is not clear whether the refusal was by Hutchens, the owner of the post office box, or the Post Office itself.
Pursuant to the November 6, 2018 Order (Publication Order), Plaintiff served the summons and complaint by publication in the Calaveras Enterprise.
Inesplicably, the Motion for Default Judgment was not served by publication but was instead served to the P.O. Box which had previously been refused and to a different zip code, 95287 and not 95247.
Based upon the foregoing it appears that service is not effective. Merits
9011: FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A) includes a safe harbor provision, service of the request for sanctions 21 days before it is filed with the court. Re the failure to prosecute the adversary, Hutchens could not legally do so after September 1, 2017 because he was disbarred. Can't be sanctioned for that. As to the proof of claim, no compliance with the safe harbor provision. Further, after September 1, 2017, Hutchens could not represent the other defendants and, therefore, likely had no authority to withdraw the proof of claim even if the safe harbor provision had been complied with.
9:30 AM
Legal Fees: The Motion appears to include all attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff. Attorneys fees should be limited to matters specifically involving Hutchens during the time he was legally able to represent the other defendants, such as fees associated wtih Hutchens' failure to comply with LBR 7026 in the Swindell Adversary prior to his ineligibility to practice law on Sept. 1, 2017.
To the extent that fees are requested based on the allegation that Hutchens' purported false allegation caused the Trustee to file his adversary proceeding, such fees are not appropriate as the Trustee has an independent duty to investigate and to prosecute based on his own judgment.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Defendant(s):
Patrick Swindell Pro Se
David P Hutchens Pro Se
Casey Swindell Pro Se
Kimberly Amaral Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc.,
4. Preservation of Avoided Transfer; Counterlaim for Declaratory Relief (filed 8/17/18, document number
FR: 10-11-18
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Another Summons Issued December 6, 2018. Per Order Entered June 17, 2019, the Next Status Conference is Scheduled for August 22, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.- mp (6/27/19)
October 11, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Apr. 15, 2019 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: May 31, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: July 18, 2019 at 9:30 am Deadline to file Joint Pretrial Stipulation: July 11, 2019
Special note: Defendant needs to state in the pretrial stipulation if it consents to this court's jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in this matter.
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, Plaintiff shall lodge a pretrial order consistent with the same.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling
9:30 AM
order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01123 Marshack (TR) v. Patow
FR: 9-20-18; 11-15-18, 3-21-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Judgment for Denial of Discharge Entered 4/25/2019 - td (5/13/2019)
November 15, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 15, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Mar. 21, 2019 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Mar. 14, 2019
Special Note: Defendant indicates he does not consent to this court entering a final judgment. However, as this matter involves core bankruptcy issues, i.e., right to bankruptcy discharge, and there is no right to a jury trial, this court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment. Stated otherwise, the consent of the parties is not required for this court to enter a final judgment/order in this adversary proceeding concerning Plaintiff's objection to Defendant's discharge.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
James Christopher Patow Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Defendant(s):
James Christopher Patow Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01078 Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Dulac, Trustees o v. Dulac et al
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow the chapter 7 trustee the opportunity to intervene.
Special Note: It appears the complaint is seeking relief against property of the bankruptcy estate and, therefore, the chapter 7 trustee would be an indispensable party.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time (including service to the chapter 7 trustee).
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Defendant(s):
Ronald H. Dulac Pro Se
Lillian Sikanovski Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Represented By
Ronald Appel
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 119
- NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Debtors have provided what appears to be proof of recent payment of the delinquent amount indicated in the Motion. Movant to advise the court if such payment has been received and, if so, how it wishes to proceed with the Motion.
Debtor(s):
James Van Nguyen Represented By Nima S Vokshori
Joint Debtor(s):
Linh Hong Nguyen-Ha Represented By Nima S Vokshori
Movant(s):
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By
Von Mai Nancy L Lee
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Nathan F Smith Shatonya R Jimmerson
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 5-30-19; 6-20-19
Docket 44
- NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
The parties are ordered to meet and confer re a possible resolution prior to the hearing. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing.
Available continued dates are June 13, 2019 and June 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
July 18, 2019
At least one party must appear to advise the court re the status of this matter. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing. Available continued dates are August 8, 2019, August 15, 2019 and August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Jose P. Hurtado Represented By Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
ABS REO TRUST II VS.
DEBTORS FR: 6-13-19
Docket 100
OFF CALENDAR: Order approving Stipulation for APO entered 6/21/19- mp(6/27/19)
June 13, 2019
Grant motion with 4001(a)(3) waiver unless Movant is agreeable to an adequate protection order.
If both parties agree to the continuance of the hearing to allow time to negotiate and APO, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing. Available continued dates are June 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. and July 18, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Darryl L. Cazares Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
10:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
DeAnna J. Cazares Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Movant(s):
ABS REO Trust II Represented By Daniel K Fujimoto Gilbert R Yabes Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 45
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 7/16/2019 - td (7/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nels Paul Billsten Represented By Rex Tran
Joint Debtor(s):
Leigh Ann Billsten Represented By Rex Tran
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Raju Gobindlal Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Robert P Zahradka
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By
10:00 AM
Jarrett S Osborne-Revis
10:00 AM
PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS.
DEBTOR FR: 6-20-19
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Continue hearing to July 18, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to correct defective service -- Debtor's attorney of record was not served as required by LBR 4001-1. (XX)
Tentative ruling for 7/18/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required if Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
July 18, 2019
10:00 AM
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gregg Michael Snider Represented By
R Gibson Pagter Jr.
Movant(s):
Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 7
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 7/1/2019 - td (7/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Raymond De Leon Pro Se
Movant(s):
ACT EQUITIES,INC Represented By Helen G Long
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 65
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ali A. Neaimi-Pour Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Cl. #4-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12110-ES)
Cl. #9-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12106-ES)
Cl. #7-1 Slyvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:12-12109-ES)
Cl. #10-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12112-ES)
FR: 3-12-19; 4-11-19; 6-20-19
Docket 289
CONTINUED: Continued to 8/22/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Approving Stipulation to Continue Hearing Entered 7/1/19 (XX) - (liz/td) (7/1/19)
NONE LISTED -
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Docket 158
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Service:
Trustee to advise the court re the status of Debbie Steelman. If she is a creditor, service of the Motion is deficient -- less than 21 days notice -- and the hearing will need to be continued. See FRBP 9019(a); 2002(a)(3).
Merits:
If service is proper, grant motion on condition that a fully executed copy of the settlement agreement is filed with seven days of the hearing.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required to address the service issue.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Claim 1-1 American Express Bank, FSB FR: 5-30-19
Docket 140
NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant to disallow claim in the amount of
$97,632.47. Deny motion as to the remaining $15,579.03. Basis for Tentative Ruling
Per the analysis of the 9th Circuit in In re Sterba,852 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ohio statute of limitations applies. Factually, this case is indistinguishable from Sterba. In Sterba, as in this case, the California 4-year statute of limitations expired prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Nevertheless, the Court held that based upon its interpretation of the 2nd Restatement, the filing of the bankruptcy created a special exception. The court does not find the existence of Action bankruptcy to be a significant distinguishing factor.
The creditor always has the ultimate burden of proof. Here, American Express has only provided a copy of credit agreement that was sent to Debtor in June 2011 but cannot produce a copy of the original agreement. The court does not find persuasive the testimony of an assistant custodian that the agreement sent in 2011 was identical to the one provided to Debtor twenty- nine years earlier. Accordingly, the June 2011 contract only applies to the
10:30 AM
charges made after it was sent to debtor. This is consistent with Utah statutory law -- Utah Code Section 25-5-4(2)(e) which provides that a credit agreement is binding and enforceable without any signature by the party to be charged if (i) "the debtor is provided with a written copy of the terms of the agreement" and (iii) after the debtor receives the agreement, the debtor, or a person authorized by the debtor . . . uses the credit card." (emphasis added)
July 18, 2019
Same tentative ruling as for May 30, 2019 hearing (see above) and which the Trustee has agreed to in its Response filed June 27, 2019 [docket #161].
The supplemental pleading filed by Amex provides no additional substantative legal analysis or authority and no persuasive new evidence to rebut the court's analysis in its May 30, 2019 tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
FR: 8-17-17; 11-16-17; 2-1-18; 5-24-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-13-18;
4-18-19; 6-20-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 17, 2017
Claims Bar Date: Oct. 23, 2017 (notice by 8/21/17)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl. Stmt: Nov. 1, 2017
Continued Status Conference: Nov. 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated
by 11/2/17 stmt has been case the no filed and the
be continued to stmt hearing. (XX)
status report to be filed unless the plan/discl. timely filed, in which status report need be status conference will the date of the discl.
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of the Debtor to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
November 16, 2017
Continue status conference to February 1, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report must be filed by January 18, 2018 unless a timely filed disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of a status report will be waived. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
February 1, 2018
Continue status conference to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed no later than May 10, 2018, unless a plan and disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of an updated report will not be required. Extend deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement to May 1, 2018. No further continuances will be granted. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
May 31, 2018
Continue chapter 11 status conference to July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; the
10:30 AM
court shall issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization or file a disclosure statement. The hearing on the OSC shall also be held on July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This court previously indicated that no further extensions of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement beyond May 1, 2018 would be granted. Debtor and its counsel apparently view the court's deadlines as mere suggestions. Nothing in Debtor's current status report justifies any further extensions. Debtor has basically "parked" itself for approximately one year in this noncomplex chapter 11 case and cavalierly intends to remained parked for at least 17 months without filing a plan and disclosure statement. This will not happen.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
July 19, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 6, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
September 20, 2018
This case has now been pending for more than a year. The status reports continue to sing the same tune about reaching a resolution with the IRS but virtually no progress has been made since the last status conference. Time is up. If a stipulation is not reached with the IRS or an adversary filed by October 15, 2018, the case will be dismissed. Given the number of
10:30 AM
continuances and time that has been granted to Debtor and the IRS with no results, the court no longer sees the need to set an Order To Show Cause re Dismissal. The case will simply be dismissed on October 16, 2018 absent a filed stipulation or adversary proceeding due to inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization.
December 13, 2018
Dismiss case due to inability of Debtor to propose a plan of reorganization. The case has been pending for 18 months without the filing of a plan and disclosure statement as previously ordered by the court. The incorporates its comments set forth in its September 20, 2018 tentative ruling (see above).
April 18, 2019
Dismiss case.
This case has now been pending for nearly two years with no contemplated plan of reorganization. Debtor wishes to continue to prop up this empty case up for the sole purpose of executing an agreement with an apparently reluctant IRS. The IRS apparently seems to have no sense of urgency regarding this case. Counsel for the IRS represented to the court on November 13, 2018 that approval from D.C. of the settlement should be obtained within 60-90 days. However, five months later, there is no approval in sight. Debtor will need to resolve its issues with the IRS outside bankruptcy.
June 20, 2019
In light of status report filed on 6/13/19 confirming approval of Debtor's settlement with the IRS by the Dept. of Justice [docket #144], continue this status conference to July 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by or before July 11, 2019 if a stipulation between Debtor and the government has not been filed by such date. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
July 18, 2019
In light of the finalization of the settlement with the IRS, continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status conference report must be filed by September 5, 2019.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
Jerome Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
FR: 3-19-19; 6-20-19
Docket 83
NONE LISTED -
March 19, 2019
Continue hearing to April 11, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to file an amended disclosure statement (DS) by March 26, 2019; response to amended DS to be filed by April 2, 2019, 2019; reply by April 5, 2019.
Court's Comments re the DS:
DS, pg.11: Debtor needs to clearly disclose the identity of its current shareholders (owners). On the one hand, Debtor states that Vvon Inc. purchased all the shares of Debtor postpetiton. However, Debtor also states that it elected to become an S Corporation. Assuming 26 CFR 1.1361-1(a)(1) and 1.1361-1(f) applies to Debtor, a C corporation is ineligible to be a shareholder of an S corporation. Debtor needs to address this issue.
DS, pp. 22-24: The treatment of Classes 2F-2I should reflect the court's ruling re Debtor's objection to such claims. Also, regarding the treatment of Classes 2F-2I, what happens to equipment not picked up by the Effective Date or August 1, 2019?
DS, pg. 25 and Exh. 3: There is an inconsistency regarding the monthly payment to Class 4a. On page 25 of the DS, the monthly amount is stated as
$2,083/mo but mathematically the amount should be $2,149 ($128,940 x 60
10:30 AM
mos) as indicated in the Plan.
DS, pg. 28: Neither the DS or the Plan discloses the compensation to be paid to insider management postconfirmation. Specifically, Sec. 1129(a)(5)
(B) requires that a plan disclose "the identity of any insider that will be employed or retained by the reorganized debtor, and the nature of any compensation for such insider." (emphasis added).
DS, pp. 35-36: There is a typo at on p. 35 at line 23 -- the "0" should deleted from 1129(a)(8). On p. 36, line 2, there should be a cross-reference to the discussion of the Absolute Priority Rule in Section H at pp. 46-47 , and explaining that the New Value Exception Rule discussed in Section H provides a common law mechanism for satisfying the "fair and equitable" requirement of 1129(b)(2).
DS, pg. 47: The discussion at lines 6-16 seems to suggest that the Absolute Priority Rule does no apply to equity interest received postpetition. This analysis is inconsistent with 1129(b) which makes no distinction between prepetition acquired equity and postpetition acquired equity. Absent convincing legal authority supporting Debtor's position, the analysis is misleading and should be modified to disclose that Class 5 interest holders will be required to present evidence of "new value" at the time of the plan confirmation hearing if cram down becomes necessary.
DS, pg. 53: Re Exh.2, liquidation analysis, "costs" of liquidation are estimated at 7% ($2,358) of the value of the unencumbered asset
( $33,675). However, Debtor later adds another liquidation cost of $3,000 (auction costs). Why? If the liquidation costs does not include auction costs, what does it include?
Comments re Opposition to Approval of DS
Objection of Dogus Media: The plan is not patently unconfirmable. It could be determined to be unconfirmable IF an impaired class does not accept the plan, no impaired class accepts the plan and a junior class (Class 6) does not provide new value. This is an issue to be addressed at confirmation should cram down become necessary.
10:30 AM
Objection of US Trustee: The court believes it has addressed this limited objection in its Comment 6 above.
July 18, 2019
Approve the First Amended Disclosure with minor correction regarding the total amount of payments to Class 4a.
The Plan states total payments to Class 4a will be $198,855, as does Exh. 3 to the FAD. However, on page 28 of the FAD, the figure is $198,940. Also, there may be an issue with the math: $49,915 + $2,149 x 60 = $178,855.
Confirmation Schedule:
Deadline to file final version of Plan/DS: 7/25/19
Deadline to serve plan/ds/ballots: 8/8/19 Deadline for creditors to return ballots/obj
to plan: 9/6/19
Deadline for Debtor to file confirmation brief addressing all applicable 1129 requirements
and to file ballot tally: 9/19/19
Confirmation hearing: 10/3/19 at 10:30 a.m.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 10-25-18; 3-7-19; 3-19-19; 6-20-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 25, 2018 [UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING]
Deadline to file plan/disclosure stmt: Jan. 17, 2019
Continued status conference: Feb. 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated status report due: Jan. 24, 2019 (this requirement is waived if Debtor
timely files plan/disclosure stmt)
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 19, 2019
No tentative ruling -- outcome will depend upon disposition of #22 on today's calendar (approval of disclosure statement).
10:30 AM
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to July 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of Debtor's disclosure statement. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required.
July 18, 2019
Continue status conference to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
[MARSHACK HAYS LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE RICHARD A. MARSHACK]
Docket 191
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Comments re the First Interim Fee Application:
The court is not inclined to award the 25% holdback at this time.
The amount of cash on hand is not apparent from the Application or the Trustee's declaration in support of the Application.
The court is concerned about a possible duplication of services as between this Applicant and special counsel Barnes & Thornburg. Both firms purport to be advising the Trustee re the Coverage Litigation, including handling discovery matters. More information is required regarding the delegation of services.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
[FORCE TEN PARTNERS, LLC, FINANCIAL ADVISOR FOR RICHARD A. MARSHACK CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE]
Docket 193
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood
10:30 AM
Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
[KARL T. ANDERSON CPA, INC., ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 189
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
[GREBOW & RUBIN, LLP, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE RE CALIFORNIA MOBILEHOME PARK LAWS]
Docket 183
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
[BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR FRIENDLY VILLAGE MHP ASSOCIATES, L.P.]
Docket 186
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 43
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 7/18/2019 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. Thomas Phinney, Attorney for Movant will Provide Notice (XX) - td (6/20/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 26
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
CCP § 704.730 provides an automatic homestead exemption in the event of a forced sale. Here, the forced sale requirement is satisfied because the filing of a bankruptcy petition constitutes a forced sale for purposes of the automatic homestead exemption. In re Kelley, 300 B.R. 11, 21 (BAP 9th Cir. 2003).
CCP § 704.730 provides that a person 65 years of age or older residing in the homestead may claim a homestead exemption of $175,000. In this case, Debtor is over 65 years of age and resides in the Property. Debtor’s Opposition, p. 11, ¶ 3-6 (Zimmerman Decl.).
"Unless a party in interest objects, the property claimed as exempt on such list is exempt." 11 U.S.C. § 522(l). The party claiming an exemption under California law bears the burden of proving the exemption. Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15, 20-21 (2000); In re Diaz, 547 B.R. 329,
337 (BAP 9th Cir. 2016); In re Tallerico, 532 BR 774, 788 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2015); Cal Code Civ. P. §§ 703.130 (opt-out) and 703.580(b) (burden of proof). "Under the Bankruptcy Code and applicable California law,
10:30 AM
exemptions are to be broadly and liberally construed in favor of the debtor." In re Altmiller-Rubio, 2011 WL 10639468 *1 , 4 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)(allowing exemption under CCP § 704.140 because the personal injury proceeds were necessary for the debtors’ support).
"A burden of production, however, is not a burden of proof." Tallerico, 532 B.R. at 790. Since claimed exemptions are presumptively valid under § 522(l), the party objecting to the exemption bears the initial "burden of production to produce an objection sufficient to overcome" the presumptive validity of an exemption. Once the objector has satisfied its burden of production to produce an objection sufficient to overcome the presumption embodied in the § 522(I) exemption-by-default provision the burden of production shifts on to the debtor to produce evidence in support of the exemption. At all times, the ultimate burden of proof, i.e., the burden of persuasion, remains on the debtor. Carter, 182 F.3d at 1029, fn. 3; Tallerico, 532 B.R. at 790-91. The shifting burden of production during exemption litigation, with the ultimate burden of proof remaining on the debtor, is similar to objections to claims where the objector bears the initial burden of production against the presumptive validity of the filed proof of claim but the claimant bears the ultimate burden of proof at all times. See, Carter, 182 F.3d at 1029 n. 3; Diaz, 547 B.R. at 336; Tallerico, 532 B.R. 787-88; In re Lundell,
223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, Creditor argues Debtor cannot claim an exemption to the Property because Debtor only has a right to possession to the Property and does not own it. This argument is belied by the very legal authority cited by Creditor, In re Moffit, which holds that a life estate interest may qualify for a homestead exemption. In Moffit, the court correctly noted that:
"The trustee's contention that debtor cannot claim a homestead exemption in the subject dwelling because legal title to the property is not held by the bankruptcy estate is without merit. While title to the dwelling is in the Living Trust, as the trustee asserts, debtor holds various “legal interests” in the subject dwelling as a trustor and beneficiary of the living trust." 107 B.R. at 259.
10:30 AM
Creditor contends that Debtor "misrepresented" in her Schedules that
she owns the property. This contention reflects a misconception of Schedule A/B. Schedule A/B, Part 1, paragraph 1 asks: "Do you own or have any legal or equitable interest in any residence, building, land, or similar property?" (emphasis added). According to Creditor's own Motion, Debtor has at least a life estate interest in the subject property. Motion at p. 1 ("Debtor is entitled to possession only during her lifetime."). Schedule A/B clearly includes within the scope of "ownership," a life estate interest when it states the following: "Describe the nature of your ownership interest (such as fee simple, tenancy by the entireties, or a life estate) (emphasis added). Thus, Creditor's premise that only a fee ownership interest is contemplated by Schedule A/B is faulty, as is the contention that Debtor unequivocally misrepresented her interest on the same.
Significantly, under Cal. CCP 704.820 a homestead right can be a "fee simple, joint tenancy, tenancy in common, leasehold, or lesser interest." California courts have adopted a liberal construction of the term "lesser interest" that includes naked possession of the land without benefit of fee title. See, e.g., Tarlesson v. Broadway Foreclosure Investments, LLC, 184 Cal.App. 4th 931, 936 (2010) (Debtor had a homestead right where the home had been her principal residence for over 20 years and the debtor continued to live in the home for nine months after she conveyed title to another).
Indeed, the 9th Circuit has recognized California's liberal application of "homestead." For example, in In re Fuentes, 687 Fed.Appx. 542 (9th Cir. 2017), the court observed:
In order to qualify as a “homestead” under the automatic homestead exemption, certain residency requirements must be satisfied. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.710(c). If the residency requirements are satisfied, a judgment debtor can claim a homestead exemption in the interest he
or she has in the property, “regardless of whether the judgment debtor’s interest is a fee, leasehold, or lesser interest.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 704.820 Law Revision Commission Comments to 1982 Addition; see
also Elliott v. Weil (In re Elliott), 523 B.R. 188, 196 (9th Cir. BAP 2014) (“[T] he [California] automatic homestead exemption applies to any interest in
10:30 AM
the property if the debtor satisfies the continuous residency requirement.”). (emphasis in original).
Alternatively, Creditor argues that to the extent Debtor owns a life estate in the Property (as opposed to a right to possession only), Debtor’s Homestead Exemption is limited to the value of the life estate, which has minimal value given Debtor’s advanced age. Creditor presents no legal authority, statutory or otherwise, for the assertion that the statutory homestead exemption is limited by the value of the property and the court is aware of no such authority. Even if Debtor’s life estate has minimal value, CCP 704.730 provides that if a debtor is 65 years of age or older, "the homestead exemption is…one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars." Notably, CCP 704.730 does not state a homestead exemption can be up to one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars.
Without “a valid statutory basis for doing so,” courts cannot “refuse to honor” a claimed homestead exemption. Law v. Siegel, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1188, 1196, 188 L.Ed.2d 146 (2014). Creditor has provided no statutory basis for denying Debtor's homestead exemption.
In sum, Creditor has failed to carry her initial burden of production to rebut the presumptive validity of Debtor’s Homestead Exemption. Since the presumptive validity of Debtor’s exemptions remains applicable, Debtor has carried her ultimate burden of proof.
As the ownership status of Debtor's interest in the property is not relevant to the claim of a homesteady exemption, there is no need to continue this hearing for 90 days as requested by Creditor.
Debtor(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
(OSC Issued 6/20/2019)
Docket 13
OFF CALENDAR: $83.00 Fee Installment Payment Made 6/20/2019 - td (6/20/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Brent Antario Elicke Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
(reset from 7-18-19 at 10:30 am)
Docket 43
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Grant motion. No further extensions beyond August 8, 2019 will be granted.
Though the court is satisfied that Movant has acted diligently since the hearing on her first motion to extend the deadline, the court also finds that 120 days from April 8, 2019 is sufficient as the court must balance Debtors' right to finality re the dischargeability (or not) of their debt.
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 47
NONE LISTED -
Deny motion without prejudice due to insufficient service under LBR 2004-1(c)
LBR 2004-1(c) requires that the motion for a 2004 examination must be served on the entity to be examined. In this matter, Movant served employer entities with the notice but not with the motion itself.
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 49
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Deny motion without prejudice due to insufficient service under LBR 2004-1(c)
LBR 2004-1(c) requires that the motion for a 2004 examination must be served on the entity to be examined. In this matter, Movant served Wells Fargo with the notice but not with the motion itself.
As to the merits, Movant does not explain why she needs bank records from 2012, i.e., seven years. The court finds Debtors' objection on this point reasonable but is not persuaded by any of Debtors' other objections.
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 53
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Deny the motion due to failure to comply with the requirements of LBR 2004-1(g) and LBR 7026-1)(c).
Local Bankruptcy Rule (LBR) 2004-1(g) provides that the parties must resolve any dispute under this rule in accordance with LBR 7026-1(c). There is no evidence of compliance with 7026-1(c), to wit, meet and confer regarding this specific dispute and preparation of a stipulation re the dispute.
Re the merits, the court is inclined to deny the motion with the following caveats:
Respondent needs to explain the necessity for seeking documents for a 7- year period.
Debtor Renee Nasiri must prepare an attorney client privilege log -- all documents not referenced on the privilege log should be produced.
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
2:00 PM
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 6/5/2019 - td (6/7/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stephen Charles Jones Represented By Peter L Nisson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bernadette Ann Oliver Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William R Roman Jr. Represented By Tony M Diab
Joint Debtor(s):
Lorraine Stephanie Roman Represented By Tony M Diab
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Dennis Harris Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura Ann Harris Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 7/30/2019 - td (7/30/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert Stoddard II Represented By Bruce A Boice
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Darlene Futrel Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 6/3/2019 - td (6/4/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Augusta Ayona Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 6/3/2019 - td (7/10/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mario Alberto Diaz Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John D. Armstrong Represented By Christine A Kingston
Joint Debtor(s):
Lisa M. Chavez-Armstrong Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 26
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Javier Ornelas Represented By Scott Dicus
Joint Debtor(s):
Martha Ornelas Represented By Scott Dicus
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Keith Thomas Sanducci Represented By Andy J Epstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Maria Fernanda Sanducci Represented By Andy J Epstein
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Shauna Barnhardt Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Brian D. Thaler Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Susana Martinez Torrezcano Represented By Rex Tran
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Represented By Omid J Shirazi
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Zeta Jayectin Besas Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 5
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Renu Bala Chauhan Represented By Jeffrey N Wishman
Movant(s):
Renu Bala Chauhan Represented By Jeffrey N Wishman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jesse Pedroza Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 with Restrcitions §109(g)(2) and 1307(b) Entered 6/14/2019 - td (6/14/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lan Anh Hoang Represented By Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 24
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Veronica Romano Represented By Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard Price Alexander Represented By Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Donna Jean Alexander Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Margoth Alvarenga Pineda Represented By Christopher P Walker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Francine Rosu Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 22
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Norman Joseph Nichols Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jill Allyn Rosoff Represented By Kelly H. Zinser
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nien T Fraser Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Emil Peter Joros Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Loren Tramontano Represented By Paul Y Lee
Joint Debtor(s):
Monique Chevalier Represented By Paul Y Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dawn Marie Baker Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ryan Phillip Jones Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandy Gee Yung Kim Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 27
OFF CALENDAR: Hearing Re-scheduled for 8/8/2019 at 10:30 a.m.; Giovanni Orantes, Attorney for Movant/Debtor Will Provide Notice (XX) - td (7/8/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 29
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Herminigilda Garcia Manalo Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 23
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kevin S. Yoneda Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
James Vea Niua Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Joint Debtor(s):
Sharon Jane Niua Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 6-25-19
Docket 33
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
James Vea Niua Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Joint Debtor(s):
Sharon Jane Niua Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 53
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Valerie E. LaHaye Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stephen LeRoy Garis Represented By
L. Tegan Rodkey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 81
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thomas John Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Kristina Renee Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 6-25-19
Docket 79
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ryan Correos Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Joint Debtor(s):
Samantha Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 62
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ali A. Neaimi-Pour Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 131
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Miguel Garcia Perez Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 6-25-19
Docket 76
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marcella Suzanne McKenzie Represented By Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 86
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Douglas Thomas Kintz Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
FR: 4-11-19; 5-9-19
Docket 4
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 9, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 9, 2019
Status conference continued to August 1, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by July 16, 2019. (XX)
August 1, 2019
Continue status conference to August 22, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss. Updated status report not required.
9:30 AM
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Pro Se
Kaufman Related Mamagement Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01112 Herrera et al v. Blair
FR: 9-21-17; 5-3-18; 5-17-18; 9-6-18; 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 4-11-19; 7-11-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED -- PRETRIAL CONFERENCE CONTINUED AS A STATUS CONFERENCE TO DECEMBER 19, 2019 AT 10:30 A.M.; UPDATED STATUS REPORT TO BE FILED BY DECEMBER 12, 2019. UPDATED STATUS REPORT MUST ADDRESS THE STATUS OF ANY STATE COURT PROBATE PROCEEDING. (MATTER CONTINUED AT HEARING HELD ON JUNE 13, 2019 -- eas (XX) - td (6/14/2019)
September 21, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 28, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Mar. 30, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: May 3, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Apr. 26, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
September 6, 2018
No status report filed. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against counsel for plaintiffs for failure to do so.
Plaintiffs' counsel to appear and advise the court re the outcome of the mediation and the status of this adversary.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
December 6, 2018
Both counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant must appear and advise the court why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed against both counsel for failure to comply with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, to wit:
Plaintiffs' counsel has not prepared, transmitted or filed a joint pretrial stipulation as required by LBR 7016-1(c);
Defendant's counsel, having not received a timely draft of a JPS, has not filed or served a proposed pretrial stipulation in accordance with LBR
7016-1(e)(2); and
Neither counsel has advised this court whether the parties attended mediation and the outcome of the same or, if not, why the parties did not attend mediation.
Note: Appearance by all counsel at this hearing is required.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly Zinser
Defendant(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Yvonne Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Dylan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Ethan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kristine A Thagard Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01031 Escolar-Chua v. United States Department of Education et al
FR: 5-17-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 5-2-19; 7-11-19
Docket 6
SPECIAL NOTE: 1) Order Approving Stip. for Discharge of Educational Loan Debt, Dismissal of Certain Defendants, and to Add Educational Credit Mgmt Corp. as a Defendant in this Adv. Proceeding Entered 4/24/2018 - td (5/8/2018). 2) Order Approving Stip. RE: Determination that Student Loan is Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8) as Between Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Only Entered 9/19/18. Judgment Entered 9/19/18. Two Defendants Remaining - td (9/19/2018)
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 9/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a Status Conference, Per Order Entered 7/30/2019 (XX) - td (7/30/2019)
May 17, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Sept. 1, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Oct. 5, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Nov. 1, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at
9:30 AM
today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
John Paul Marc Z. Escolar-Chua Represented By
Christine A Kingston
Defendant(s):
United States Department of Represented By Elan S Levey
University of Southern California Pro Se
Wells Fargo Education Financial Pro Se Educational Credit Management Represented By
Scott A Schiff
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Represented By John H Kim
Navient Solutions, LLC Represented By Robert S Lampl
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
Plaintiff(s):
Jacqueline Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01172 Pacific Western Bank v. Gaglio et al
FR: 12-6-18; 12-20-18; 6-20-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 10/3/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Re Stipulation for Order Continuing Pretrial Conference to October 3, 2019 entered 7/1/2019 (XX) - (liz/td) (7/1/2019)
December 20, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: May 3, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: June 20, 2019 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: June 6, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By
9:30 AM
Timothy S Huyck
Defendant(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Pro Se
Laura A. Gaglio Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Plaintiff(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01084 Constantin et al v. Duff
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
August 1, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Nov. 4,, 2019
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Dec. 20, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Jan. 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Jan. 16, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Michael J Duff Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Michael J. Duff Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Holly Constantin Represented By Alan W Forsley
Michael Constantin Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Alan W Forsley
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 95
NONE LISTED -
August 1, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief unless Movant is willing to enter into an adequate protection agreement with Debtor, in which case the parties may request a continuance of the hearing at the time of the calling of the calendar prior to hearing. Available hearing dates: 8/22/19, 9/5/19, 9/12/19 at 10:00 a.m.
Special note: If Movant is not willing to enter into an adequate protection order, the motion will be granted as noted above as Debtor has not presented evidence in his opposition sufficient to rebut the evidence presented by Movant -- specifically that he is current with postpetition payments. Failure to comply with the confirmed plan is a basis for granting relief from stay under 362(d)(1) irrespective of equity.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Nathan M. Donahue Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Movant(s):
Capital One Auto Finance, a division Represented By
Cheryl A Skigin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK, N.A.
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 34
NONE LISTED -
August 1, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
James Omer Hursh Pro Se
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK, NA AS LEGAL TITLE Represented By
Diane Weifenbach
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 24
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 7/25/2019 - td (7/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Movant(s):
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By
Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
August 1, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gabriela Anabel Hatchett Grijalva Represented By
Violeta Delgado
Movant(s):
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
August 1, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Trinidad Garza Represented By Christopher Hewitt
Movant(s):
Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Robert P Zahradka
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
DIRECT CAPITAL, A DIVISION OF CIT BANK, N.A. VS.
DEBTOR FR: 7-16-19
Docket 15
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 7/25/2019 - td (7/25/2019)
July 16, 2019
Deny motion due to insufficient supporting evidence. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
There is insufficient evidence showing that Movant is a creditor of Debtor. All supporting contracts and UCC-1 Statements indicate that Movant is a creditor of RJ Russell Equipment, Inc., a corporate entity. None of the contracts indicate that Debtor guaranteed the debt of RJ Russell Equipment, Inc. or otherwise assumed liability for such debt. Moreover, Debtor doesn't list the property on his schedules.
No evidence of value of the subject property has been provided to show lack of adequate protection (362(d)(1)) or lack of equity (362(d)(2)).
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Randall J Russell Represented By William P White
Movant(s):
c/o Ferns, Adams $ A DIRECT Represented By Amanda N Ferns
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 32
NONE LISTED -
August 1, 2019
Grant the motion. If Debtor appeared at the July 25, 2019 341(a) creditors' meeting, the ruling applies to any and all future continued 341(a) creditors' meetings scheduled by the trustee.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Roman Gabriel Machutt Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Movant(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:30 AM
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
August 1, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01049 Rehburg v. Helton-Rehburg
FR: 6-21-18; 1-31-19; 5-2-19; 5-7-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Pre-trial Conference Continued to 11/21/2019 at 9:30 a.m,
Per Order Entered 6/5/2019 (XX) - td (6/5/2019)
June 21, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Nov. 1, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 11, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Jan. 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
(XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Jan. 17, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Represented By Christopher P Walker
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa M. Rehburg Represented By Bradley D Blakeley
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 128
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Vanessa Frazier Elrousan Represented By Eliza Ghanooni
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon as Represented By
Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 121
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 9/12/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 8/7/2019 (XX) - td (8/7/2019)
August 8, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Bert Ranelycke-Svensson Represented By Scott Dicus
Movant(s):
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By
Nathan F Smith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 56
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Margarita Calderon Represented By Stephen R Wade
W. Derek May
Movant(s):
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By
Erica T Loftis Pacheco
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Akbar Tajdini Represented By Kian Mottahedeh
Movant(s):
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT Represented By
Erica T Loftis Pacheco
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 216
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Beneficial Services, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams Paul J Kurtzhall
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[SHULMAN, HODGES, & BASTIAN, ATTORNEY FOR TRUSTEE]
Docket 185
OFF CALENDAR: Fees Allowed per Order Entered 3/31/2017, Document #195 - td (7/30/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Beneficial Services, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams Paul J Kurtzhall
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Uliana A Kozeychuk Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 125
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Brian Delmer Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Lynn Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY LLP, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 122
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Brian Delmer Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Lynn Couch Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
Docket 111
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Court's comments regarding the Motion/Opposition/Reply:
As a preliminary matter, the court does not believe that, upon achieving partial summary judgment as to a particular claim, a plaintiff should be compelled to litigate the remaining claims. See, e.g., In re Delpit, 2006 WL 6810932 (9th Cir. BAP 2006) (Court upheld the bankruptcy court's granting of partial summary judgment and the plaintiffs' subsequent dismissal of the remaining claim without prejudice, noting that "[p]laintiffs were entitled to dismiss the remaining claims after partial summary judgment was granted).
Plaintiff has moved for dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(2) which permits an "action" to be dismissed by order of the court. Defendant is correct that the Ninth Circuit has interpreted FRCP 41(a)(2) as allowing an entire action to be dismissed and not individual claims. See, Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv, 403 F.3d 638, 687-688 (9th Cir. 2005). In Hells Canyon, the Court held that there is no analytical distinction between Rule 41(a)(1) and Rule 41(a)(2) and that Rule 41(a) only provides for dismissals of entire actions and not of individual claims.
Notably, in Hells Canyon, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(2) motion could be deemed to be a motion to amend the complaint
10:30 AM
under FRCP 15 which governs "the withdrawals of individual claims against a given defendant" and opined that "the fact that a vountary dismissal of a claim under Rule 41(a) is properly labeled an amendment under Rule 15 is a technical, not a substantive, distinction." 403 F.3d at 687, 689.
Applying the ruling in Hells Canyon, this court can deem the instant Rule 41(a) motion as a Rule 15 amendment of the complaint to withdraw the first and second claims for relief.
Defendant takes issue with the dismissal without prejudice. The court is unaware of any legal authority that would toll the statutory deadling for filing a nondischargeability complaint after its expiration or allow the filing time to spring back upon the re-filing of claim previously dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., In re Ryan, 408 B.R. 143, 160 (Bankr.N.D. Ill. 2009)("The dismissal of a matter without prejudice permits refiling but only within the original limitations period . . . the dismissal of the matter without prejudice does not mean that the subsequent matter need not comply with the statute of limitations." See also, In re Domingo, 2017 WL 6601773 (BAP 9th Cir. 2017) ("The 'without prejudice' condition permists a plaintiff to refile the complaint as if it had never been filed."). The time to extend the time to file a nondischargeability complaint has long expired and this court lacks authority to grant such an extention. Willms v. Sanderson, 723 F.3d 1094, 1100 ("the sixty-day time, limit for filing nondischargeability complaints under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) is strict and, without qualification, cannot be extended unless a motion is made before the 60–day limit expires").
Rule 54(b) certification appears to be appropriate in light of the fact that a) the unadjudicated counterclaim is separate and independent, b) it is unlikely that that certification would result in piecemeal appellate review, c) Plaintiff will suffer prejudice by delay in recovery on its nondischargeable claim, d) the court is inclined to grant the request to dismiss the first and second claims for relief, thereby leaving no just cause for delay in prosecuting any appeal of the courts partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff as to 523(a)(6).
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By
10:30 AM
Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
FR: 4-18-18, 5-16-19; 6-20-19
Docket 66
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, filed 8/5/2019 - td (8/6/2019)
May 16, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Special note: The parties should continue to pursue an amicable resolution. Absent such a resolution, a continued hearing will be set to permit the creditor to provide documentary evidence of attorneys fees along with task descriptions. The note permits reasonable attorneys fees. Debtor is entitled to object to the reasonableness of the fees. The court cannot ascertain the reasonableness of the fees without a breakdown of the fees by task.
June 20, 2019
The parties are to advise the court regarding the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 7-16-19
Docket 75
OFF CALENDAR: Chapter 7 Trustee's Voluntary Dismissal/Withdrawal of Motion, filed 8/5/2019 - td (8/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Approve employment application nunc pro tunc as of March 14, 2019.
Special Note: This matter was set for hearing as this was the second employment application involving this trustee that was filed untimely without an adequately stated basis for retroactive employment. The court wishes to avoid sending a message that it will rubberstamp any and all applications seeking retroactive employment without explanation. Both Applicant and the trustee should take care in future cases to make sure that employment applications are timely filed. One factor courts consider in deciding whether to approve such employment is where the applicant has track record of untimely filings.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Francis J. Marzec Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Anerio V Altman
10:30 AM
Docket 53
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Deny approval of the Disclosure Statement.
Debtor failed to comply with this court's March 13, 2019 Order which required that Debtor file a plan and disclosure statement no later than May 30, 2019. As of August 5, 2019, Debtor has not filed a plan.
Though Debtor filed a disclosure statement, the disclosure statement describes an unfiled plan, rendering the same in appropriate and ineffective.
The objections filed by the IRS, U.S. Bank, Rancho Del Rio Master Association, and the U.S. Trustee are well-taken and are incorporated herein by reference as an additional basis for not approving the disclosure statement.
Notice and service were improper. Debtor has not provided any proof of service of either the disclosure statement or notice of the disclosure statement hearing on all creditors.
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels Jeffrey P Spencer
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 6-20-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues:
In light of Debtor's prior unsuccessful chapter 11 case and ultimate dismissal on the basis of bad faith, what are the changed circumstances that will result in a successful end to this case?
Why has Debtor been unable to pay mortgage payments since 2016?
On his Schedule I, Debtor lists monthly income of $15,000. Has Debtor actually grossed this amount since the filing in December 2018?
On his Schedule J, Debtor lists monthly expenses for water/sewage/garbage collection in the amount of $2,000, telephone/cell/internet/satellite in the amount of $2500 and electricity in the amount of $500. An explanation of monthly utility expenses of $5,000 will be required.
Claims bar date: 5/20/19 (notice to creditors by 3/20/19) Deadline to file plan/disc. stmt: 5/30/19
10:30 AM
Continued status conference: 6/20/19 at 10:30am; updated status report
plan and disc which case the report will be
must be filed by 6/6/19 unless a stmt have been timely filed, in requirement of an updated waived. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to August 8, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of disclosure statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
August 8, 2019
Dismiss the case.
Debtor was admonished via the court's March 13, 2019 Order that this case would be dismissed or converted if a plan and disclosure statement was not filed by May 30, 2019. More than 60 days later, no plan has been filed, no request for an extension of time to file a plan was filed and no explanation has been provided for the failure to comply with the Order. The court notes parenthetically that even when objecting parties pointed out the absence of a filed plan, Debtor failed to take heed and file a plan.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels
10:30 AM
Docket 43
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Re Debtor's argument re merger of the assessment lien into the abstract of judgment which was avoided in his prior 2017 case, no 17-13129, the court incorporates by reference here in its September 4, 2018 Order granting Debtor's motion to avoid the abstract of judgment under 522(f) but expressly noting that it made "no finding or ruling regarding the continued viability of the underlying assessment lien." Thus, Debtor's argument that this issue was decided in the 2017 case is incorrect.
The court also incorporates by reference herein, its tentative ruling from the March 29, 2018 hearing which is copied below. The court clearly indicated that it was following the procedural analysis of In re Coy, 552 B.R. 199, which would require the commencement of an adversary proceeding. The filing of an objection to claim is not the equivalent of an adversary proceeding. See, FRBP 3007(b) which provides that a party "shall not include a demand fo relief of a kind specified in Rule 7001 in an objection to the allowance of a claim."
Claimant has provided sufficient evidence in its opposition re the amount of the claim (e.g., re attorneys fees).
10:30 AM
Tentative ruling for March 29, 2018 hearing in case no. 17-13129:
March 29, 2018
Grant motion to avoid the abstract of judgment. Comments:
Upon review of all pleadings, including supplemental briefs, and applicable case law, the ruling shall be limited to the relief specifically requested in the Motion itself, i.e., the avoidance of the lien created by the abstract of judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 522(f). The court assumes that the original and current lien amounts set forth on page 3 of the Motion reflects the amount owed as of February 8, 2012 per the abstract of judgment issued April 27, 2012, plus interest at the California judgment rate. The court notes further that the second notice of delinquent assessment and claim of lien recorded on August 24, 2016 in the amount of $10,350.88 covers dates after the issuance of the abstract of judgment.
This court makes no finding or ruling regarding the continued viability of the underlying assessment lien as such would be beyond the scope of the Motion.
The court finds the sound analysis and procedural approach in In re Coy, 552 B.R. 199 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2016) to be both instructive and persuasive. In Coy, as in this case, the court was asked to clarify whether the avoidance of the abstract of judgment would affect the homeowner association's underlying assessment lien in light of Diamond Heights Vill. Ass'n. Inc v. Fin. Freedom Senior Funding Corp, 196 Cal App. 4th 290 (2011). The court declined to "comment or decide the issue of whether the underlying homeowners' assessment liens were merged into the subsequent judicial liens" as the issue had not been raised in the original motion. The court further observed that Section 522(f) is "silent as to the effect of lien avoidance on other liens not sought to be avoided" and that a determination as to the continued viability of the underlying assessment lien would require the commencement of an adversary proceeding. 552 B.R. at 206 (emphasis in original). This court agrees.
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber
10:30 AM
Movant(s):
Fritz J Firman
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 727(a)(8
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Grant the motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
James Omer Hursh Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 7-30-19
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 19
OFF CALENDAR: Withdrawal of Debtor's Motion, filed 8/5/2019 - td (8/5/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Dennis Harris Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura Ann Harris Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
August 8, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Scott T. Vu Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Thu M. Nguyen Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Docket 740
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 9/19/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order
Entered 7/12/2019 (XX) - td (7/15/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01095 Steward Financial LLC v. Bral
Docket 78
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 9/19/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order
Entered 7/12/2019 (XX) - am/td (7/15/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Steward Financial LLC Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
2:00 PM
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19
Docket 128
NONE LISTED -
July 16. 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19
Docket 130
NONE LISTED -
July 16. 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By
9:30 AM
David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01187 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
U.S.C. §§548(a)(1)(B) and 550; To preserve avoided transfers pursuant to 11
U.S.C. §552; and (8) For injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §105
(Another Summons Issued 1/31/19) FR: 1-31-19; 4-18-19; 5-16-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
January 31, 2019
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against attorney for Plaintiff for failing to timely file a status report. In addition, no proof of service has been filed showing proper service to defendants. Continue hearing to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. Court to issue OSC re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute which will be heard on the same date/time as the continued hearing.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
April 18, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue hearing to May 16, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 2, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report required by August 1, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
August 15, 2019
In light of settlement, continue status conference to October 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 3, 2019 if an order approving the settlement has not been entered by such date.
Special note: As of August 8, 2019, there were no pending lodged orders re the settlement.
Note: Appearances at this hearing is not required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
9:30 AM
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01071 Bral v. Beitler
FR: 9-20-18; 3-21-19
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 16, 2020.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued date/time.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
Barry Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01071 Bral v. Beitler
FR: 9-20-18; 3-21-19
Docket 20
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Continue status conference to January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 16, 2020.
9:30 AM
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued date/time.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
Barry Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01092 Beitler v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18; 3-21-19
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Continue status conference to January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 16, 2020.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Barry Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01094 Beitler & Associates, Inc. dba Beitler Commercial v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18; 3-21-19
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Continue status conference to January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 16, 2020.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Beitler & Associates, Inc. dba Beitler Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01095 Steward Financial LLC v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18; 3-21-19
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. Deadline for Defendant to file responsive pleading to the FAC: June 20, 2019. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.; an updated status report is not required.
9:30 AM
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued date/time.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Steward Financial LLC Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01143 Marshack v. Nguyen
FR: 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 3-21-19; 5-30-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order on Stipulation for Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Entered 6/21/2019 - td (6/21/2019)
October 11, 2018
Continue pretrial conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; joint pretriial stipulation due on November 29, 2018.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
December 6, 2018
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference to January 24, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by January 10, 2019, (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
January 24, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue Status Conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 21, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 30, 2019
In light of pending settlement continue hearing one final time to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 8, 2019 if the settlement agreement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this status conference are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
AA-TEK Machining, Inc. Represented By Tina H Trinh
Defendant(s):
Natalie Nguyen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Kelly Zinser
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery Kelly Zinser
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01061 Marshack (TR) v. Patow et al
(4) Turnover of Estates Interest in Trust Assets; and (5) Injunctive Relief
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019 | ||
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 11/30/19 | |
Pretrial Conference Date: Deadline to file Pretrial Stipulationr: | 1/9/20 | 1/16/20 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
James Christopher Patow Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Defendant(s):
James Christopher Patow Pro Se Alvin and Linda Patow 2006 Trust Pro Se
9:30 AM
Linda Patow, as Trustee of the Alvin Pro Se Linda Patow Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Chad V Haes
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01135 Richards v. Richards
30-2018-00986705-CU-FR-CJC)
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Continue this status conference to September 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on pending motion to remand.
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are waived (no appearance required).
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Ryal W. Richards Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01019 Marshack v. Bernards Bros. Inc., a California corporation
FR: 4-12-18; 6-7-18; 7-27-18; 8-3-18; 11-1-18; 5-16-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Joint Stipulation Dismissing Adversary Proceeding Entered 8/6/2019 - td (8/6/2019)
April 12, 2018
Continue status conference to June 14, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on the pending motion to compel arbitration. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
November 1, 2018
Plaintiff to advise the court re the status of the arbitration matter. If more time is needed, this hearing may be continued to December 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (updated status report to be filed by December 6, 2018) by filing a stipulation or requesting a continuance during the roll call on the day of the hearing.
May 16, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report required by August 1, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing is not required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
Debtor(s):
Koller Coatings Corporation Represented By Arash Shirdel
Defendant(s):
Bernards Bros. Inc., a California Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Scott A Kron
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Scott A Kron
10:00 AM
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 5-30-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
The parties are ordered to meet and confer re a possible resolution prior to the hearing. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing. Available continued dates are June 13, 2019 and June 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
July 18, 2019
At least one party must appear to advise the court re the status of this matter. If more time is needed, the parties may request a continuance at the time that the clerk announces the roll call just prior to the hearing. Available continued dates are August 8, 2019, August 15, 2019 and August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
10:00 AM
August 15, 2019
At least one party must appear to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Jose P. Hurtado Represented By Richard G Heston
Movant(s):
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for tentative ruling:
The court cannot make a finding that this case was filed in good faith as there is insufficient evidence that Debtor has regular income sufficient to fund a plan.
Debtor lists income of $4600, $2100 of which is from "family contribution."
Debtor also lists monthly expenses of $3599, leaving "net income of $1,000 to fund her plan.
Absent the family contributions, Debtor has a monthly shortfall of over $1,000 and nothing to fund a plan.
The motion does not include any evidence concerning the family contribution, e.g., a) identification of the contributor(s); b) declaration of the contributor(s) re the ability to make such a large monthly contribution and the commitment to pay
$126,000 into Debtor's plan ($1000 x 60).
Debtor(s):
Augusta Ayona Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[HABERBUSH & ASSOCIATES, LLP, ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION]
Docket 159
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Valerie A Joy Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush David R Haberbush
10:30 AM
Docket 161
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Valerie A Joy Represented By
Vanessa M Haberbush David R Haberbush
10:30 AM
[JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 130
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Carmen Louisa Ponce Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Docket 123
- NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
10:30 AM
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 44
- NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
TodoCast, Inc. Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe
10:30 AM
[GOE & FORSYTHE, LLP, COUNSEL FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 42
- NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
TodoCast, Inc. Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 30
- NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
TodoCast, Inc. Represented By Hamid R Rafatjoo
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01078 Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Dulac, Trustees o v. Dulac et al
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Defendant(s):
Ronald H. Dulac Pro Se
Lillian Sikanovski Represented By Michael Jones Ronald Appel
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Represented By
Ronald Appel Michael Jones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
F.R.B.P. 2017 and to Order Counsel to File a 2016(b) Statement FR: 6-20-19
Docket 23
NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Grant motion in part as follows: Debtor's counsel, Thin V Doan, must 1) file a Rule 2016(b) statement by or before July 18, 2019, and 2) submit to the United States Trustee any state court or bankruptcy retainer agreements, as well as an attorney client ledger by or before July 18, 2019. The hearing on this motion will be continued to August 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. for a determination as to the reasonableness and/or disgorgement/cancellation of any fees related to this case. Movant shall file any supplemental pleading in support of the motion by or before July 25, 2019; Debtor's counsel must file any response thereto by or before August 1, 2019 and any reply by Movant must be filed by or before August 8, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is waived and Movant shall lodge an order consistent with the same.
August 15, 2019
No Rule 2016 statement has been filed by Attorney Thinh V Doan. The court will
10:30 AM
issue an Order to Show Cause why Attorney Doan should not be held in contempt of the Court's June 25, 2019 Order and why sanctions in the amount of
$1,000 should not be imposed for such contempt.
Debtor(s):
Lan Anh Hoang Represented By Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 7-16-19
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Continue hearing to August 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow respondent to obtain an authenticated valuation that includes interior/exterior property inspection.
Respondent's supplemental pleading must be filed by August 1, 2019; any reply by Debtor must be filed by August 8, 2019. Debtor shall allow access to the property upon 1 business day's notice. (XX)
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Set matter for evidentiary hearing regarding the value of the property as of the date of the filing. Both appraisers must be present for cross examination.
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as incorporated by the FRBP), and the Federal Rules of Evidence apply.
Available evidentiary hearing dates: September 23, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. or September 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
10:30 AM
Debtor's request in his Reply brief is denied -- the court may not weigh the declaration testimony of one declarant over another.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
Debtor(s):
Charles William Hutchison Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 70
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Service Issues:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 3007 governs the manner of service of an objection to claim. Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that if an objection is to the claim of an "insured depository institution" service of the objection and notice must be a) to the person designated on the claimant's proof of claim by first class mail, AND b) in the manner provided by Rule 7004(h).
FRBP 7004(h) requires that service to an insured depository institution must be made by certified mail addressed to an officer of the institution unless the institution has appeared by its attorney, in which case the attorney shall be served by first class mail.
Bankruptcy Code Section 101(35)(B) defines "insured depository institution" as including "an insured credit union."
Because SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union ("SchoolsFirst" or "Claimant") is an insured credit union, Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) applies.
10:30 AM
There is no record of an attorney appearing on behalf of SchoolsFirst in this case and, therefore, service by certified mail to the attention of an officer was required. Such service was not made.
Merits of the Objection:
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
In this case, Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001. The Claim was filed on Official Form 410 and included supporting documentation, such as evidence of the outstanding debt. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of
10:30 AM
the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. Community Debt
Debtor also argues that the debt owed to SchoolsFirst is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2).
Allocation of Community Debt
Finally, Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing SchoolsFirst's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection on the basis of assigned liability to Mr. Richards.
Arrears of $912.24 Referenced in the Proof of Claim
On this issue, Debtor appears to have satisfied her burden of showing that she is likely current with respect to the payments made to SchoolsFirst.
However, the court cannot sustain her objection at this time on this issue because of the service problem. See Service discussion above.
Based upon all of the foregoing, Debtor has not satisfied her burden of presenting affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by
10:30 AM
showing facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the subject proof of claim.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 74
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Service Issues:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 3007 governs the manner of service of an objection to claim. Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that if an objection is to the claim of an "insured depository institution" service of the objection and notice must be a) to the person designated on the claimant's proof of claim by first class mail, AND b) in the manner provided by Rule 7004(h).
FRBP 7004(h) requires that service to an insured depository institution must be made by certified mail addressed to an officer of the institution unless the institution has appeared by its attorney, in which case the attorney shall be served by first class mail.
Bankruptcy Code Section 101(35)(B) defines "insured depository institution" as including "an insured credit union."
Because SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union ("SchoolsFirst" or "Claimant") is an insured credit union, Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) applies.
10:30 AM
There is no record of an attorney appearing on behalf of SchoolsFirst in this case and, therefore, service by certified mail to the attention of an officer was required. Such service was not made.
Merits of the Objection:
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
In this case, Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001. The Claim was filed on Official Form 410 and included supporting documentation, such as evidence of the outstanding debt. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of
10:30 AM
the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. Adequacy of the Proof of Claim
Debtor argues in conclusory manner without any legal support or authority that Claimant has not provided "adequate proof" of its claims and that "statements on the account from 2013 to present" is required. The court is unaware of any such requirement.
Rule 3001(a) requires that the proof of claim must "confirm substantially to the appropriate Official Form." In this case, the proof of claim is filed on Official Form 410.
Rule 3001(c)(3) provides that when a claim is based on an open-end or revolving consumer credit agreement, certain information is required such as, the name of the entity to whom the debt is owed, the date of the last transaction, the date of the last payment on the account and the date on which the account was charged off.
The statement attached to the proof of claim indicates that it is a revolving credit card debt and, therefore, Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) applies. The statement appears to include all of the required information. Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) does not require that all monthly statements be attached.
Community Debt
Debtor also argues that the debt owed to SchoolsFirst is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." In this case, the credit obligation is in the name of both Debtor and her ex-spouse and is a community debt, as she admits. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2).
10:30 AM
Allocation of Community Debt
Finally, Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing SchoolsFirst's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection.
Based upon all of the foregoing, Debtor has not satisfied her burden of presenting affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the subject proof of claim.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 81
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Take matter off-calendar as moot. Parties have stipulated to Claimant withdrawing Claim #10 and Debtor withdrawing this objection to claim. A proposed order approving the stipulation must be filed within 7 days of today's hearing.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 89
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service issues: The Amended Objection to Claim was not timely filed for this hearing date. FRBP Rule 3007(a)(1) requires that objections to claim be filed at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing -- this includes amended objections to claim. Here, the Amended Objection to Claim was filed July 25, 2019, only twenty days prior to today's hearing.
Merits: Even if the Amended Objection to Claim was timely, no relief can be fashioned because Mr. Sharizi did not file a proof of claim. Further, though the original chapter 13 plan filed by Mr. Sharizi on behalf of Debtor included $2600 in fees to be paid through the plan, Debtor has since filed a superceding amended plan that does not provide for such fees.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service issues: The Amended Objection to Claim was not timely filed for this hearing date. FRBP Rule 3007(a)(1) requires that objections to claim be filed at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing -- this includes amended objections to claim. Here, the Amended Objection to Claim was filed July 30, 2019, only sixteen days prior to today's hearing and includes new argument and evidence that were not included in the original objection to claim filed July 9, 2019.
Merits: Even if the Amended Objection to Claim was timely, Debtor's arguments regarding disallowance of the claim are not persuasive and not supported by legal support or authority.
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and
10:30 AM
will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219
B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
Debtor's Arguments:
Inadequate Proof of Debt: Debtor argues that Claimant filed a contract between American Info Source ("American") and Verizon but did not provide a contract between Debtor and American or Verizon.
First, the contract between American and Verizon simply memorializes a servicing agreement between the two entities that authorizes American to file a bankruptcy proof of claim on behalf of Verizon. The contract states in part "This Short Form Services Agreement will allow American Infosource to file, amend or withdraw bankruptcy related proof of claim (POC) filings on behalf of of Verizon." The servicing agreement has no bearing on Debtor's or the bankruptcy estate's liability for the debt.
Second, the proof of claim, filed on Official Form 410, also includes a Statement of Accounts with Debtor's name, address, account number, and summary of charges with the amount due, last transaction date, charge-off date, etc.. This is sufficient to satisfy Rule 3001(a) and is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Third, Debtor asserts that there ia a discrepancy between the amount on the March 25, 2017 invoice, $225.15, and the amount on the proof of claim,
$220.85. However, as the Statement of Accounts indicates an amount due of
$200.85, which matches the amount on the proof of claim, this argument is not
10:30 AM
persuasive as a basis for disallowing the claim.
Community Debt
Debtor contends that the debt owed to Verizon is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." In this case, the credit obligation is in the name of both Debtor and her ex-spouse and is a community debt, as she admits. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2).
Allocation of Community Debt
Finally, Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing SchoolsFirst's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection. As for Debtor's argument that the claim needs to be "offset" against her ex-spouse, no legal authority is stated for offsetting a community claim from one spouse to another absent a family court order. The Februrary 22, 2016 Order attached to the Objection does not assign liability of this particular debt solely to Mr. Richards.
Service of Proof of Claim: There is no rule or statute requiring a creditor to serve its proof of claim on a debtor. FRBP 3002 only requires that the proof of claim be filed with the court.
10:30 AM
In sum, because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is
required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. Debtor has not met that burden of proof.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Derivative; (2) Constructive Trust
(Advanced from 6-14-18)
FR: 6-7-18; 7-19-18; 12-20-18; 5-2-19; 5-7-19
Docket 47
- NONE LISTED -
July 19, 2018
The following discovery schedule applies to Plaintiff and Defendant Haleh Fardi: Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 19, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Nov. 16, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Dec. 6, 2018
Deadline for Plaintiff to move for entry of default judgments as to non-answering
defendants: Sept. 21, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
May 7, 2019
9:30 AM
Court's Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
A demand for jury trial has been made. Each party is required indicate whether they consent or do not consent to the jury trial being conducted in this court. Absent 100% consent by all parties, the jury trial must be held in District Court. Statements re consent or nonconsent to this court conducting the jury trial must be filed with the court by May 21, 2019.
The facts to which Defendant Russell Wallace admitted to in his answer should be reflected in the Admitted Facts Section of the Stipulation.
Re Section (c)(1) of the Issues of Law, why must a determination be made at trial re whether Mr. Redman and Mr. Martin breached their fiduciary duties to 29 Prime when defaults have been entered against both gentlemen?
Why isn't Ms. Fardi ready for trial? The reason(s) should have been set forth in the Stipuation.
Any motions in limine need to be filed no later than June 18, 2019 and scheduled for hearing no later than July 16, 2019.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
August 22, 2019
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation filed 8/16/19:
Who has signed off on the JPS. No signatures for either of the remaining defendants, Russell Wallace or Haleh Fardi. Did either of them participate in the preparation of this JPS?
The JPS is supposed to include a section on all admitted facts that require no proof. So, why does that section include the statement that Ms. Fardi "disputes" the admitted facts? That would make them NOT admitted. Which facts does
9:30 AM
she actually dispute?
Why does the admitted facts section include Nos. 13, 18 - 48 which all appear to be DISPUTED FACTS????
Why does (f) state that plaintiff "intends to file a motion in limine" when such a motion was already filed as of August 16, 2019, the date the JPS was submitted?
Special Note: If at all possible, the court would like for the trustee, Richard Marshack to participate in this hearing.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01031 Bral v. Samini et al
FR: 5-9-19; 7-16-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Dec. 16, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Jan. 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Pretrial Stipulation: Jan. 16, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Babak Samini Represented By David Choi
Matthew Hoesly Represented By David Choi
Samini Scheinberg, APC Represented By David Choi
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By
Gary A Pemberton Alan J Friedman
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Declaratory Relief (Successor Liability); 2. Intentional Fraudulent Transfer; 3. Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; 4. Preservation of Avoided Transfer; 5. Turnover of Assets; 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 7. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; 8. Unjust Enrichment (Another Summons Issued 12/6/10)
FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 4-4-19; 4-16-19; 6-20-19
Docket 55
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/7/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 8/21/2019 (XX) - td (8/21/2019)
June 20, 2019
Joint status report not filed by June 13, 2019 pursuant to this court's order entered 4/25/19. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against each party for the failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
August 22, 2019
Joint status report not filed by August 8, 2019 pursuant to this court's order entered June 17, 2019. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against each
9:30 AM
party's attorney for the failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Pro Se
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
U.S.C. §523(a)(4); 3. Willful and Malicious Injury by the Debtor to Plaintiff (11
U.S.C. §523(a)(6)); and (4) Denial of Limited Discharge (11 U.S.C. §524(a)(3) FR: 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 9/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Entered 8/8/2019 (XX) - td (8/8/2019)
June 20, 2019
No tentative ruling. This tentative will be trailed to the 2:00 p.m. calendar along with the Motion to Dismiss
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Pro Se
Cheri Lynn Natzic Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By
9:30 AM
Moises S Bardavid
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
Kevin Meek
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01044 Van der Laan v. Phong
FR: 6-20-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Continue Status Conference to August 22, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
August 22, 2019
In light of pending motion for default judgment, continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Jacob Van der Laan Represented By John E Lattin
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01108 Pipitone v. Choice Motor Credit, LLC
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue Status Conference to October 3, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve Defendant with notice of the continued status conference date/time.
Debtor(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Choice Motor Credit, LLC Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA VS.
DEBTOR FR: 7-18-19
Docket 119
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of Movant's Motion, filed 8/6/2019 - td (8/6/2019)
July 18, 2019
Debtors have provided what appears to be proof of recent payment of the delinquent amount indicated in the Motion. Movant to advise the court if such payment has been received and, if so, how it wishes to proceed with the Motion.
Debtor(s):
James Van Nguyen Represented By Nima S Vokshori
Joint Debtor(s):
Linh Hong Nguyen-Ha Represented By Nima S Vokshori
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By
Von Mai Nancy L Lee Nathan F Smith
Shatonya R Jimmerson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 42
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 10/3/2019 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered 8/21/2019 (XX) - td (8/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Dominga Cuenca Morales Represented By Scott Dicus
Movant(s):
Ditech Financial LLC Represented By Julian T Cotton Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 56
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Sergio Rubio Sanchez Represented By Raymond Perez
Joint Debtor(s):
Silvia Sanchez Represented By Raymond Perez
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Kelsey X Luu
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
PACIFIC WESTERN BANK VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 53
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Grant the motion to allow the matter to proceed in state court now that the subject property interests have been abandoned to Debtor and to suspend the adversary proceeding. The court is especially concerned about the fact that the state court action includes multiple non-debtors as defendants, over which this court has no jurisdiction. The court sees no appreciable prejudice to Debtors in allowing the matter to proceed to judgment in state court but does see potential signficant legal prejudice to the Movant if it has to litigate the same or related matters in two forums -- potentially resulting in inconsistent rulings. As for the pending summary judgment motion, such motion will be held in abeyance without prejudice to Debtors presenting the motion in the state court action.
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
10:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
Movant(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 4-4-19; 6-20-19
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
The parties are to advise the court regarding the status of this matter.
August 22, 2019
The parties are to advise the court regarding the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Angie M Marth Kelsey X Luu
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 30
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
The parties are to advise the court regarding the status of this matter. If more time is need to explore a resolution, a request may be made at the time of the calendar roll call before the hearing for a continued hearing date. Available dates are September 5, 12 and 19 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Esteban Carrasco Represented By Seema N Sood
Joint Debtor(s):
Maria L Carrasco Represented By Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
21st Mortgage Corporation Represented By Amy Dukes
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Diane Weifenbach
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Brett J McNamara Represented By Parisa Fishback
Joint Debtor(s):
Magda C McNamara Represented By Parisa Fishback
Movant(s):
Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Cheryl A Skigin
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Grant motion without waiver of Rule 4001(a)(3) and without extraordinary relief requested in Requests for Relief #s 7, 9, 10, and 11 due to insufficient grounds stated for such extraordinary relief.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Because the Notice to Pay or Quit and Unlawful Detainer Complaint were filed prepetition, Debtor's tenancy in the subject residence was terminated prior to the filing of the bankuptcy, subject to a determination of the state court following trial that the termination was proper. See, In re Windmill Farms, 841 F.2d 1467, 1469 (9th Cir. 1988). The filing of the bankruptcy case does not have the effect of reversing the termination of the tenancy.
Whether or not the moving party violated the automatic stay is a separate issue and beyond the scope of a hearing on the motion for relief from the stay.
Debtor has stated no legal basi for denial of the motion, especially in light of her
10:00 AM
statement that she intends to vacate the premises by the end of this month. As the court is granting the motion without the waiver of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 4001(a)(3), the order grant relief from stay will not become effective until 14 days following the entry of the order on the court docket.
Moving party has requested that relief from stay be effective in any future bankruptcy for a period of 180 days. This is considered extraordinary relief -- no grounds have been stated for such relief.
Relief from stay is being granted to permit the moving party to obtain a writ of possession. Relief from stay is not being granted to permit the execution of any money judgment.
Debtor(s):
Michelle Hancock Altobelli Pro Se
Movant(s):
Victor Mello, Trustee Represented By Michael F Obrand
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 502
Docket 391
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
Docket 393
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
Cl. #4-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12110-ES)
Cl. #9-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12106-ES)
Cl. #7-1 Slyvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:12-12109-ES)
Cl. #10-1 Sylvie Masson $2,003,901.12 (filed in Case No. 8:16-bk-12112-ES)
FR: 3-12-19; 4-11-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19
Docket 289
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of this matter.
In light of the recent BAP order dismissing the appeal of this court's order
10:30 AM
approving the compromise between the trustee, claimant Sylvie Mason and others, the court presumes that the petitioning creditors have reached a resolution with claimant.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 172
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Fantasy Aces LP Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw Golsa Honarfar
10:30 AM
[MARSHACK HAYS LLP, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 171
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Fantasy Aces LP Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw Golsa Honarfar
10:30 AM
[KARL T. ANDERSON, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 170
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Fantasy Aces LP Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Matthew Grimshaw Golsa Honarfar
10:30 AM
Docket 157
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Before the court will approve the Motion, Debtor's counsel will need to address the following issues:
Service:
Service to the "County of Riverside District Attorney" is insufficient in light of 1) Debtor seeks approval of a priming lien that would be superior to the County of Riverside's lien, 2) service is not to the attention of a particular person, and 3) as the lien secures the debt of Debtor's tenant, there is no obvious connection to Debtor, further necessitating proper service.
What is Debtor's exit strategy for this case? To pay the IRS and then dismiss the case? If so, what will prevent the need for a subsequent bankruptcy filing if Debtor cannot pay the $1M advance to PBC by January 31, 2020?
When do the $15,000 interest payments re the $1M advance commence. How will Debtor make that payment as well as the $5,000+ payment for the first PBC loan?
How will Debtor make payments to PBC and to the County for its substantial property tax delinquency?
10:30 AM
Are there any unsecured creditors?
On the face of the Motion, it appears Debtor is seeking a quick way to pay the IRS claim without any articulated thought as to how it will actually perform under the modified agreement with PBC.
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
Docket 226
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow debtor submit a supplemental pleading in compliance with LBR 3007-1(c)(1) and (2) [objection not supported by declaration of objecting party].
Tentative Ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Sustain objection.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
N.A. - Proof of Claim #6
Docket 232
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow debtor submit a supplemental pleading in compliance with LBR 3007-1(c)(1) and (2) [objection not supported by declaration of objecting party].
Tentative Ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Sustain objection.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
Docket 230
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow debtor submit a supplemental pleading in compliance with LBR 3007-1(c)(1) and (2) [objection not supported by declaration of objecting party].
Tentative Ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Sustain objection.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
Docket 90
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
The court is inclined to sustain the objection as to accrued interest and to overrule the objection as to the principal debt, i.e., $120,000.
The parties are to address the following issues: Debtor:
This court has already abstained from hearing the merits of case involving this loan in light of a pending state court action that Debtor initiated prepetition involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants. Debtor is to advise the court re the status of the state court litigation.
The court finds Debtor's argument that she doesn't owe anything to Claimant because she "never received the money," strains credulity in light of the joint venture agreement she entered into regarding the acquisition of the Sea Island property and her subsequent acknowledgement of the purchase. See Claimant's Opposition, Declaration of Angel Santiago and exhibits attached thereto; Declaration of Michael Van Ness, Exhibit 1.
Debtor's Objection does not explain or provide any legal analysis regarding relevance of Claimant's lack of a real estate license. She simply declares Claimant is not exempt from usury laws without any legal analysis. The court
10:30 AM
declines to do Debtor's research for her.
As of July 26, 2019, it appears Claimant is active and no longer suspended.
Even if the interest is usurious, the principal balance remains. Further, even if, because of the lack of notice, the note has not yet matured, the principal debt remains and has to be treated through Debtor's chapter 13 plan.
Claimant
Claimant's assertion of the nonapplicability of Cal. Civ. Code 2966 is unpersuasive in light of the fact that the note itself expressly states that "this note is subject to Section 2966 . . . which provides that the holder . . . shall give written notice to the trustor . . . at least 90 and not more than 150 days before any balloon payment is due." Thus, whether or not Section 2966 would have otherwise applied or not, Claimant clearly intended to provide the protections of Section 2966 by including it in the note that it presumably drafted. Absent notice given pursuant to the note, it has not yet matured.
The note is clearly usurious under California Constitution Article XV Section 1 as it exceeds 10% per annum. Claimant has the ultimate burden of proof and has not provided any basis for it being exempt from the usury law.
The court is not persuaded that Debtor's claim is time-barred. See Debtor's reply.
Special note: This court's ruling as to this claim objection cannot be used by or against any person or entity other than Debtor and Premier Home Solutions, Inc. in any other state or federal action. Further any ruling by this court regarding the subject proof of claim is without prejudice to Premier seeking prejudgment interest at the legal rate once notice is properly given under the note.
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Fritz J Firman
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 98
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Grant motion with order to include language requested by MTGLQ Investors, LP.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Eugene Martin Huapaya Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 70
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Deny Confirmation.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service: There is no proof of service showing service of the Third Amended Disclosure Statement, the Third Amended Plan or the Order Approving the Third Amended Disclosure Statement on all creditors.
Merits
Failure to comply with June 21, 2019 Order ("Order") requiring that ballots be filed with the court by August 12, 2019. No ballots and no ballot tally analysis filed.
Failure to comply with Order requiring the filing of a confirmation brief by August 12, 2019 addressing compliance with all the applicable confirmation requirements of 11 U.S.C. 1129, including without limitation, the best interests test (1129(a)(7)), feasibility (1129(a)(11)), cramdown provisions for secured creditors under 1129(b) (including without limitation evidence of present value and evidence in support of interest rate as to US Bank).
10:30 AM
Failure to address issue of marketing of the Camino Santa Elise Property, which is critical to the feasibility of the Plan.
Failure to address issues raised by objecting creditors Shellpoint and U.S. Bank.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
and (2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 9-6-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 3-21-19; 4-18-19; 6-6-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 6, 2018
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues which are not addressed in the status report:
Cash Collateral: Debtor has rental income but there is no mention of seeking authorization to use cash collateral or a cash collateral stipulation.
State Court Litigation: More information regarding the nature and procedural posture of the state court action is required. What was going on in the litigation that caused this case to be filed? How will this litigation be dealt with in the bankruptcy case?
Plan/Disclosure Statement: This case appears to be relatively straightforward but the timing of filing a plan and disclosure statement is not discussed in the status report.
Tentative Schedule:
Claims Bar Date: Nov. 19, 2018 (notice by Sept. 17, 2018)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: Nov. 29, 2018
Con't Status Conf: Dec. 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report Due: Dec. 6, 2018 (waived if plan/DS timely
10:30 AM
filed)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 20, 2018
Impose sanctions in the amount against Debtor's for 1) failure to file a plan and disclosure statement and failure to timely file a status report in accordance with the court's September 6, 2018 order. No explanation is offered as why the plan and disclosure statement were not filed by November 29, 2018. No attempt was made to seek an extension of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement. Apparently, counsel views the dates set forth in such order as a mere suggestion which can otherwise be ignored.
The court will issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely file a plan and disclosure statement and to comply with orders of the court.
Note: Apppearance at this hearing is required.
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of related matter on today's calendar.
March 21, 2019
Continue chapter 11 status conference to April 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of disclosure statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is
10:30 AM
Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
April 18, 2019
No tentative ruling; outcome will depend upon the disposition of #24 on today's calendar.
June 6, 2019
No tentative ruling; outcome will depend upon the disposition of #16 on today's calendar.
August 22, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of plan confirmation hearing
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
Docket 22
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Deny approval of the stipulation.
This stipulation is essentially a reaffirmation agreement which does not comply with the requirements 11 USC 524(c). Notably, no adversary proceeding was timely filed.
Debtor(s):
John T. Bishop Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Movant(s):
Coast Restaurant Group, Inc. Represented By Eric J Fromme
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 100
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Deny Motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor argues that under FRCP 59(e), the Court should reconsider the Relief From Stay Order entered by this court on June 26, 2019 ("RFS Order") because the Family Law Court denied Debtor her due process rights during the divorce proceeding, including failing to hold hearings on Debtor’s requests and entering orders beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. Moreover, lifting the automatic stay was "clear error and manifestly unjust" under FRCP 59(e) because it places Debtor back into the same court that previously denied her due process rights. See, Mot., p. 7:1-26.
These argument are unpersuasive for several reasons. First, FRCP 59(e), made applicable herein by Rule 9023, is no longer available for Debtor to rely upon because the Motion is untimely. FRCP 59(e) provides that the Motion needed to be filed no later than 14 days after entry of the RFS Order. The RFS Order was entered on June 26, 2019, so the 14-day deadline was July 10, 2019. Debtor did not file the Motion until July 12, 2019. Thus, FRCP 59(e) is inapplicable here.
10:30 AM
Even if the court deems the Motion to be one under FRCP 60(b) (Relief from a Judgment or Order), no grounds have been stated for relief from the RFS Order. Reconsideration or relief from an order is "an 'extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.'" Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); Kona Enters.,Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000). There are four basic grounds upon which a FRCP 59(e) motion may be granted. First, (1) the judgment is based upon manifest errors of law or fact; (2) there is newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) amendment is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; and (4) there is an intervening change in the controlling law. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999), citing 11 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2nd ed. 1995); In re Arden Properties, Inc., 248 B.R. 164, 168 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2000).
Moreover, the courts in the Ninth Circuit have also recognized that a motion for reconsideration is not permitted (a) to assert new legal theories that could just as well have been raised before the initial hearing; (b) to present new facts which could have been presented before the initial hearing; or (c) to re- argue the same arguments made the first time or simply express an opinion that the court was wrong. See MGIC Indemnity Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir.1986). Thus, to avoid being frivolous, such a motion must provide a valid ground for reconsideration. All Hawaii Tours v. Polynesian Cultural Center, 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 (D.Hawaii 1987).
Debtor’s argument focuses on the first ground for a FRCP 59(e)- manifest error of law or fact. Debtor has failed to demonstrate any manifest error of law or fact in this Court. Instead, Debtor’s argument focuses on alleged errors committed by the FLC. As noted by the Court in its tentative ruling on the RFS Motion, however, "The bankruptcy court is a court of limited jurisdiction and cannot be used to avoid state court rulings/orders that a party believes were wrongfully decided or unjust -- the appropriate avenue is the appeal of such rulings or orders." Finally, Debtor’s due process contentions represent an re- argument the same arguments that were previously presented to the Court, both in Debtor’s pleadings and at oral argument. See, Debtor’s Mem. of Points and Authorities, p. 2:2-15 [dkt. #36]. Accordingly, Debtor’s request under FRCP 59(e)
10:30 AM
should be denied.
The Court is Not Persuaded that Mr. Richard's Attorney Perpetrated a Fraud on the Court
Debtor next argues that the RFS Order should be reconsidered under FRCP 60(3), because Mr. Richards’ attorney committed fraud on the Court by failing to inform the Court that the family court orders are not final orders because they are currently on appeal, and that the orders are void due to the FLC’s violations of Debtor’s rights and lack of jurisdiction. See, Mot., p. 8:26-11:15.
Under FRCP 60(b)(3), made applicable herein by Rule 9024, a bankruptcy court may also grant relief from an order that is based on fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by the adverse party. "To prevail, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through, fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense." De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).
In this case, Debtor’s argument is factually inaccurate because Mr.
Richards’ attorney fully disclosed to the Court that the orders are on appeal in his declaration filed in support of the RFS Motion. See, RFS Mot., p. 2, ¶10-4:1. In fact, Debtor herself disclosed that the FLC orders were on appeal in her pleadings and at oral argument. See, Debtor’s Mem. of Points and Authorities,
p. 2:2-15 [dkt. #36]. Accordingly, the Court cannot make a finding that Mr. Richards’ attorney was committed fraud on the Court. As to the alleged violations of Debtor's due process rights by the FLC, this court has no jurisdiction to correct any such violations if they occurred -- that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state appellate court.
FRCP 62 Is Inapplicable in Contested Matters Such as Motion for Relief From Stay
Debtor’s third argument is that the Court should issue a stay under FRCP
Under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7062, FRCP 62 is applicable only in adversary proceedings. The RFS Motion is a contested matter
10:30 AM
governed by FRBP 9014 which incorporates some but not all of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure into contested matters. FRCP 62 is not one of the Rules made applicable to contested matters by FRBP 7062. Furthermore, the Court notes that Rule 62 provides for the stay of proceedings to "enforce a judgment." The RFS Order does not provide for the lifting of the stay to enforce a judgment -- it simply allows the parties to continue the family law litigation in state court.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Debtor has state no grounds for reconsideration of the RFS Order.
Granting relief from the automatic stay to allow family law related litigation to be fully adjudicated in state court is entirely consistent with the law of this circuit. See, MacDonald v. MacDonald (In re MacDonald ), 755 F.2d 715, 717 (9th Cir.1985) ("It is appropriate for bankruptcy courts to avoid incursions into family law matters "out of consideration of court economy, judicial restraint, and deference to our state court brethren and their established expertise in such matters." ... Schulze v. Schulze, 15
B.R. 106, 109 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1981) (granting debtor's wife relief
10:30 AM
from stay to complete state proceedings for divorce, child custody and property division)".
The bankruptcy court is a court of limited jurisdiction and cannot be used to avoid state court rulings/orders that a party believes were wrongfully decided or unjust -- the appropriate avenue is the appeal of such rulings or orders. Under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1), this court has the discretion to abstain from hearing matters where 1) state law predominates over bankruptcy issues,
2) there is an existing related proceeding in state court (at either the trial or appellate level), 3) there is no federal jurisdiction other than the filing of the bankruptcy petition, 4) the likelihood that the filing of the bankruptcy case involved forum shopping by the debtor, 5) the presence of nondebtor parties, and 6) the lack of any substantive effect on the administration of the bankruptcy case if absention is exercised. See, In re Tucson Estates, 912 F.2d 1162, 1166-68 (9th Cir. 1990). As the issues to be adjudicated in this case involve all state law issues regarding marital property division and distribution, there is an existing related state court proceeding, there is no federal jurisdiction beyond the filing of the bankruptcy petition, there are affected nondebtor parties, the adjudication in state court will not substantively impact the administration of this estate because this is essentially a two-party dispute between Debtor and her former spouse that cannot be resolved through the chapter 13 claim or plan process, and Debtor has admitted in her supplemental opposition pleadings that this case was filed to avoid the affect of various state court rulings (forum shopping).
Under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), a bankruptcy filing imposes an automatic stay of virtually all civil litigation against the debtor. A bankruptcy court "shall" lift the automatic stay "for cause." 11
U.S.C. § 362(d)(1); Tucson Estates, 912 F.2d at 1166. " ‘Cause’ has no clear definition and is determined on a case-by-case basis." Id. "Where a bankruptcy court may abstain from deciding issues in favor of an imminent state court trial involving the same issues,
10:30 AM
cause may exist for lifting the stay as to the state court trial." Id., citing Piombo Corp. v. Castlerock Props. (In re Castlerock Props.), 781 F.2d 159, 163 (9th Cir.1986).
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 48
CONTINUED: HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AT 10:30AM BY REQUEST OF THE DEBTOR AT UNRELATED HEARING HELD ON AUGUST 15, 2019. DEBTOR MUST SERVE ANY AMENDED OBJECTION RE THIS CLAIM NO LATER THAN AUGUST 20, 2019 -- eas 8/15/19 (XX) - td
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 44
CONTINUED: HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AT 10:30AM BY REQUEST OF THE DEBTOR AT UNRELATED HEARING HELD ON AUGUST 15, 2019. DEBTOR MUST SERVE ANY AMENDED OBJECTION RE THIS CLAIM NO LATER THAN AUGUST 20, 2019 -- eas 8/15/19 (XX) - td
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 51
CONTINUED: HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AT 10:30AM BY REQUEST OF THE DEBTOR AT UNRELATED HEARING HELD ON AUGUST 15, 2019. DEBTOR MUST SERVE ANY AMENDED OBJECTION RE THIS CLAIM NO LATER THAN AUGUST 20, 2019 -- eas 8/15/19 (XX) - td
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 54
CONTINUED: HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AT 10:30AM BY REQUEST OF THE DEBTOR AT UNRELATED HEARING HELD ON AUGUST 15, 2019. DEBTOR MUST SERVE ANY AMENDED OBJECTION RE THIS CLAIM NO LATER THAN AUGUST 20, 2019 -- eas 8/15/19 (XX) - td
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 57
CONTINUED: HEARING CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AT 10:30AM BY REQUEST OF THE DEBTOR AT UNRELATED HEARING HELD ON AUGUST 15, 2019. DEBTOR MUST SERVE ANY AMENDED OBJECTION RE THIS CLAIM NO LATER THAN AUGUST 20, 2019 -- eas 8/15/19
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 20
OFF CALENDAR: Chapter 13 Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal filed 8/20/2019 - td (8/20/2019)
August 22, 2019
Deny motion as moot in light of Debtors' amended Schedule C filed 7/24/19 [docket #22] in which the subject exemption has been reduced from $175,000 to
$75,000.
Note: If Movant accepts the tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
William R Roman Jr. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Lorraine Stephanie Roman Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 15
OFF CALENDAR: Chapter 13 Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal filed 8/15/2019 - td (8/15/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jesse C Peck Represented By
Christopher Hewitt
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Deadline to file Plan and Disclosure Statement: 10/21/19 Continued Status Conference Date: 11/21/19 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report due date: 11/7/19 unless a plan & DS
filed, in which case requirement of a report will
have been the
be waived.
Special Note: The court does not ordinarily set a deadline for the filing of objections to claim.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Pro Se
Kaufman Related Mamagement Pro Se
Related Management, a New York Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels Kent Salveson
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
FR: 4-11-19; 5-9-19; 8-1-19
Docket 4
NONE LISTED -
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 9, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 9, 2019
Status conference continued to August 1, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by July 16, 2019. (XX)
August 1, 2019
Continue status conference to August 22, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss. Updated status report not required. (XX)
2:00 PM
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Pro Se
Kaufman Related Mamagement Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 7/8/2019 - td (7/8/2019)
Debtor(s):
Cary Gold Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Alan Kohn Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 7/2/2019 - td (8/8/2019)
Debtor(s):
Dushan Michael Gunasekera Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Douglas Paul Westfall Represented By Don Emil Brand
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline Ann Westfall Represented By Don Emil Brand
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Barrie J Edlin Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Joint Debtor(s):
Jackie Lee Edlin Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Debra V Green Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 7/1/2019 - td (8/8/2019)
Debtor(s):
Raymond De Leon Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 8
CONTINUED: Confirmation Hearing Continued to 10/22/2019 at 1:30 p.m., Per Order Entered 8/14/2019 (XX) - td (8/14/2019)
Debtor(s):
Karla Golbert Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Timothy Madison Seagondollar Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nimfa Albaniel Vibal Represented By
D Justin Harelik
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rock Leo Hudson Represented By
Nicholas Nicholas Wajda
Joint Debtor(s):
Paula Agnes Hudson Represented By
Nicholas Nicholas Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lorli Penny Giolli Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 22
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dennis Thien Dinh Represented By Bryn C Deb
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 8/20/2019 - td (8/20/2019)
Debtor(s):
Darryl Wayne Norman Represented By Bahram Madaen
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stephen Tague La Fountain Represented By Kevin Tang
Joint Debtor(s):
Rosemary Ann La Fountain Represented By Kevin Tang
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 6/18/2019 - td (8/7/2019)
Debtor(s):
Carlos J Calvillo Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 6/18/2019 - td (8/7/2019)
Debtor(s):
Michael Alan Kohn Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Juan Carlos Salinas Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sonny Pai Represented By
Anthony B Vigil
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 6/17/2019 - td (6/17/2019)
Debtor(s):
Juan Carlos Melgarejo Pro Se
Movant(s):
Juan Carlos Melgarejo Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jesse C Peck Represented By
Christopher Hewitt
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Charles A Thomas Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Joint Debtor(s):
Theresa A. Thomas Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 8/27/2019 - td (8/27/2019)
Debtor(s):
Bernadette Ann Oliver Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William R Roman Jr. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Lorraine Stephanie Roman Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Dennis Harris Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura Ann Harris Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Susana Martinez Torrezcano Represented By Rex Tran
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 5
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Renu Bala Chauhan Represented By Jeffrey N Wishman
Movant(s):
Renu Bala Chauhan Represented By Jeffrey N Wishman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John T. Bishop Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Charles William Hutchison Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 7/30/2019 - td (7/30/2019)
Debtor(s):
Fernando Serrano Represented By Lionel E Giron
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Pejman Pirmoradi Represented By Alon Darvish
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
FR: 3-27-18; 7-17-18; 9-25-18; 11-27-18; 1-22-19; 3-26-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 7-30-19
Docket 23
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kevin S. Yoneda Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 69
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 7/22/2019 - td (7/23/2019)
Debtor(s):
William Raymond Harvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Joint Debtor(s):
Akram Naieharvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 48
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 8/26/2019 - td (8/26/2019)
Debtor(s):
Eric Michael Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Joint Debtor(s):
Celena Renee Webber Represented By
Hasmik Jasmine Papian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 41
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nicole H. Hazlett Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 5-21-19; 6-25-19
Docket 30
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 71
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, filed 8/6/2019 - td (8/7/2019)
Debtor(s):
Deborah Ambrose Represented By Todd B Becker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 7-30-19
Docket 38
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stephen LeRoy Garis Represented By
L. Tegan Rodkey
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19
Docket 113
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Giuseppe Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Joint Debtor(s):
Heldia F. De Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Troy Bernard Jemerson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 57
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 7/17/2019 - td (7/17/2019)
Debtor(s):
Christopher Quentin Chappell Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 7-30-19
Docket 81
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 8/26/2019 - td (8/26/2019)
Debtor(s):
Thomas John Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Kristina Renee Snodgrass Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 35
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Grace A Craft Represented By
Charles W Daff
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 6-25-19; 7-30-19
Docket 79
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 8/20/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (8/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Ryan Correos Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Joint Debtor(s):
Samantha Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 59
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 Filed 8/20/2019 - td (8/20/2019)
Debtor(s):
Christopher Michael Brooksbank Represented By
Karine Karadjian
Joint Debtor(s):
Suzanne Michelle Brooksbank Represented By Karine Karadjian
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 7-30-19
Docket 86
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 8/21/2019 - td (8/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Douglas Thomas Kintz Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 38
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 7/24/2019 - td (7/24/2019)
Debtor(s):
Chalice Ann Addis Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19; 6-25-19
Docket 111
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 8/21/2019 - td (8/21/2019)
Debtor(s):
Justin William Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Heather Ann Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 7-30-19
Docket 131
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Miguel Garcia Perez Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE VS.
DEBTOR FR: 8-1-19
Docket 95
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation Entered 8/29/2019 - td (8/29/2019)
August 1, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief unless Movant is willing to enter into an adequate protection agreement with Debtor, in which case the parties may request a continuance of the hearing at the time of the calling of the calendar prior to hearing. Available hearing dates: 8/22/19, 9/5/19, 9/12/19 at 10:00 a.m.
Special note: If Movant is not willing to enter into an adequate protection order, the motion will be granted as noted above as Debtor has not presented evidence in his opposition sufficient to rebut the evidence presented by Movant -- specifically that he is current with postpetition payments. Failure to comply with the confirmed plan is a basis for granting relief from stay under 362(d)(1) irrespective of equity.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Nathan M. Donahue Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Movant(s):
Capital One Auto Finance, a division Represented By
Cheryl A Skigin
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 82
NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gerardo Caravez Represented By Michael D Franco
Joint Debtor(s):
Rafaela Caravez Represented By Michael D Franco
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Represented By
Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 49
NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mario P. Guerrero Represented By Gary S Saunders
Joint Debtor(s):
Niza B. Guerrero Represented By Gary S Saunders
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
NewRez LLC dba Shellpoint Represented By
Erin M McCartney
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 86
NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Deny motion unless Movant can direct the court to evidence that reflects Ddbtor's interest, legal or otherwise, in the subject real property.
The Business Loan Agreement does not appear to reference the property and the Mortgage does not mention Debtor. Finally Debtor is not the legal owner of the property.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, National Represented By
Yvonne Ramirez-Browning Raffi Khatchadourian
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jesse Vaughn Ray Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Westerra Credit Union Represented By Scott S Weltman
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael E. Silbermann Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Movant(s):
John Deere Construction & Forestry Represented By
James MacLeod
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:15-01274 Smelli, Inc v. Motamed
Docket 195
SPECIAL NOTE: Motion to Request the New Court Hearing Date filed 8/28/2019; Order For Motion to Request the New Court Hearing - Denied 9/3/2019 - td (9/3/2019)
September 5, 2019
Deny exemption claim Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Under CCP 706.051, an exemption may be claimed for expenses that are "necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor's family supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor." Unfortunately, Section
706.051 does not provide a definition of what constitutes a "necessary" expense.
The court is neither bound nor persuaded by the ruling in Ratzlaff v. Portillo, 14 Cal App 3d 1013 (1971), cited by Judgment Recovery Assistance LLC ("JRA") in which the court held that an automobile is not a "common necessary of life") (interpreting the predecessor to 706.051). Some courts have held that automobiles may be a necessity. See, Franco v. Gennaco, 2015 WL 4776522 (Dist.Ct.C.D.Cal). Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the person claiming the exemption and the determination of what is necessary for support may differ with each judgment debtor. Id.
In this matter, the court finds that the monthly automobile expenses of $1700 (or $20,400 per year) for two cars are not entirely necessary for support based
10:30 AM
upon the following circumstances:
Judgment debtor Mir Motamed (Ms. Maboudi's spouse) is/was apparently self-employed as an automobile/truck dealer. His bankruptcy petition and schedules indicate that operates or operated a business known as Shawn Auto Truck Dealer. According to his schedule B, neither he or his spouse owned any automobiles at the time of the filing of this case.
Apparently, the judgment debtors purchased two cars after the bankruptcy filing for a total purchase price of more than $50,000 at a time when they had to have known that there was a nondischargeability action pending (or that a default judgment of nondischargeability had been entered). Even accepting that cars may be necessary for transportation to/from work, the court can take judicial notice of the fact that the judgment debtors could have purchased two pre-owned cars for half that amount, especially given Mr. Motamed's experience in the automobile sale industry.
The the monthly expense of $850 (or $10,200 per year) for insurance, gas and repair for the two vehicles is unreasonably high.
In paragraph 11 of the Claim of Exemption and Financial Declaration, Ms. Maboudi declares that as of May 24, 2019, she intended to spend $1100/mon for summer camp for two children, suggesting that the family had disposable income of that amount.
Though Mr. Motamed received a discharge in June 2015, he and/or Ms. Maboudi have apparently incurred more than $9,000 in new debt to Capital One, Syncrony and American Express, resulting in postpetition monthly debt service in the amount of $400. No explanation has been provided as to why such credit card debt constitutes a "necessity."
Debtor(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Represented By
Randal A Whitecotton
10:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Mir Mohammad Motamed Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Smelli, Inc Represented By
Marvin Maurice Oliver David K Compton
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 53
September 5, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Movant to correct service issues: Failure to comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(c) (notice of deadline to file opposition); Failure to serve Debtor per FRBP 7004(b)(3) as required by FRBP 9014 for contested matters (motion was not served to the attention of an officer, director or agent for service of process as to Debtor); Chapter 7 trustee was not properly served.
Tentative ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Deny motion as to the request to withdraw as state court counsel and grant motion as to the alternative request for relief from the automatic stay to move withdrawal in the state court case.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Movant shall give notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Christine D Barker
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
10:30 AM
Claim 1-1 American Express Bank, FSB FR: 5-30-19; 7-18-19
Docket 140
May 30, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant to disallow claim in the amount of $97,632.47. Deny motion as to the remaining $15,579.03.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Per the analysis of the 9th Circuit in In re Sterba,852 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ohio statute of limitations applies. Factually, this case is indistinguishable from Sterba. In Sterba, as in this case, the California 4-year statute of limitations expired prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Nevertheless, the Court held that based upon its interpretation of the 2nd Restatement, the filing of the bankruptcy created a special exception. The court does not find the existence of Action bankruptcy to be a significant distinguishing factor.
The creditor always has the ultimate burden of proof. Here, American Express has only provided a copy of credit agreement that was sent to Debtor in June 2011 but cannot produce a copy of the original agreement. The court does not find persuasive the testimony of an assistant custodian that the agreement
10:30 AM
sent in 2011 was identical to the one provided to Debtor twenty-nine years earlier. Accordingly, the June 2011 contract only applies to the charges made after it was sent to debtor. This is consistent with Utah statutory law -- Utah Code Section 25-5-4(2)(e) which provides that a credit agreement is binding and enforceable without any signature by the party to be charged if (i) "the debtor is provided with a written copy of the terms of the agreement" and (iii) after the debtor receives the agreement, the debtor, or a person authorized by the debtor . . . uses the credit card." (emphasis added)
July 18, 2019
Same tentative ruling as for May 30, 2019 hearing (see above) and which the Trustee has agreed to in its Response filed June 27, 2019 [docket #161].
The supplemental pleading filed by Amex provides no additional substantative legal analysis or authority and no persuasive new evidence to rebut the court's analysis in its May 30, 2019 tentative ruling.
September 5, 2019
Grant motion and allow the claim in the amount of $15,579.03.
The latest supplemental pleadings filed by Amex provides no additional substantative legal analysis or authority and no persuasive new evidence to rebut the court's analysis in its May 30, 2019 tentative ruling. The Utah law cited in the May 30, 2019 tentative ruling clearly intends the contract to apply prospectively (i.e., when notice is given and when the card is used) and not retroactively as to any and all prior charges as Amex is necessarily arguing. Amex has the ultimate burden of proof and it has not proven liability of the debtor (as distinguished from the corporate entity Action Electric, Inc.) for the $97,632.47.
This matter remains under review by the court; a tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF NEIL R. ANAPOL, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR TRUSTEE]
Docket 41
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
David C. Park Represented By Raymond J Seo
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Neil Anapol
10:30 AM
Docket 567
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Deny motion in its entirety. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
An appellant seeking a discretionary stay pending appeal under Bankruptcy Rule 8005 must prove: (1) appellant is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal;
(2) appellant will suffer irreparable injury; (3) no substantial harm will come to appellee; and (4) the stay will do no harm to the public interest.” Universal Life Church v. United States, 191 B.R. 433, 444 (E.D.Cal.1995), citations omitted. “The party moving for a stay has the burden on each of these elements.” In re Shenandoah Realty Partners, L.P., 248 B.R. 505, 510 (W.D.Va.2000). Movant's failure to satisfy one prong of the standard for granting a stay pending appeal dooms the motion. In re Irwin, 338 B.R. 839 (E.D. Cal. 2006); In re Deep, 288 B.R. 27, 30 (N.D.N.Y.2003)
Even when a movant makes a colorable showing under each of those four factors, however, the decision to stay an order pending appeal is “an exercise of judicial discretion.” Niken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009)
Settlement Order Dated Dec. 27, 2018 ("Settlement Order")
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
10:30 AM
Debtor argues that this court's approval of the settlement agreement
between the chapter 7 trustee ("Trustee") and Ford was in error because the settlement included the compromise of certain prepetition personal tort claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress) that are not assignable under California law. Stated otherwise, Debtor contends that because of the personal nature of the tort claims, the Trustee had no authority to settle the claims with Ford and this court had no authority to approve the settlement. Debtor cites the court to a number of California court cases in support thereof. However, as a matter of bankruptcy law, personal injury claims, including emotional distress claims are property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. Section 541, irrespective of any state anti-assignment laws. See, Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.., 789 F.2d 705, 707-709 (9th Cir. 1986) ("a debtor's pre-petition emotional distress claim is property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 regardless of state law"); Bronner v. Gill, 135 B.R. 645, 747 (9th Cir. BAP 1992); Karlins v. Hotel Ramada of Nevada, 138 Fed.Appx. 9 (unpub. 9th Cir. 2005) (recognized long-standing precedent that a debtor's tort claim is an asset of bankruptcy estate, and thus has to be pursued, if at all, by the bankruptcy trustee).
Even California state courts have recognized this truism. See, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development v. Musick, Peeler & Garrett, 76 Cal.App.4th 830, 834 (1999):
"Under federal law, all legal and equitable interests of the debtor become part of the bankruptcy estate. (11 U.S.C. § 541; Baum v. Duckor, Spradling & Metzger (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 54, 69–70, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 703; Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (9th Cir.1986) 789 F.2d 705–709.) It follows that even claims that are not assignable under state law transfer to the bankruptcy estate. (Baum v. Duckor, Spradling & Metzger, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th 54, 69, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 703.) Once the claim becomes part of the bankruptcy estate, the trustee is authorized to prosecute it and to hire agents to do so on the trustee's behalf."
To the extent that Baum v. Duckor holds that tort claims are property of the estate but may not be administered by a bankruptcy trustee, the court rejects such a holding as contrary to statutory bankruptcy law. Section 704(a)(1)
10:30 AM
expressly provides that a trustee shall "collect and reduce to money the property of the estate for which such trustee serves " (emphasis added).
Here, the Trustee clearly exercised his Code authorized duty to administer and liquidate assets of the estate. This court is not aware of any reported or unreported decision in this Circuit ruling that an emotional distress claim cannot be prosecuted and settled by a chapter 7 trustee. Notably, the subject settlement agreement itself does not provide for an "assignment" of the tort claims but rather for the dismissal of the cross-complaint, which is well within his authority to do. In sum, likelihood of success on appeal has not been established by Debtor and, on that basis alone the motion cannot be granted as to the Settlement Order.
Irreparable Injury
Debtor has not presented any substantive argument or facts indicating she will suffer irreparable injury if a stay is not granted. The court notes that the settlement proceeds currently being held by the Trustee cannot be distributed without an order of this court on notice to creditors and Debtor. The failure to satisfy this prong alone warrants denial of the motion as to the Settlement Order.
Substantial Harm to the Trustee
The only potential harm to the Trustee if a stay is imposed would be to prevent the Trustee from seeking to pay administrative expenses of the estate from the settlement proceeds during the pendancy of the appeal. The court does not consider this to be a "substantial" harm. However, as Debtor has not satisfied the first and second prongs, the lack of substantial harm to the Trustee is effectively irrelevant.
Harm to the Public Interest
The court perceives of no harm to the public interest if a stay were imposed. However, as Debtor has not satisfied the first and second prongs, the lack of substantial harm to the public interest is effectively irrelevant.
Exemption Order Entered December 27, 2018 ("Exemption Order")
10:30 AM
Likelihood of Success on Appeal
Debtor has not established that success on appeal is likely. First, she misunderstands the effect of this court's May 18, 2018 Order sustaining Ford's objection to her exemption claim that was made during the pendancy of the chapter 13 (before conversion to chapter 7). The May 18 Order was final when entered. A bankruptcy court's order denying a claim of exemption is a final, appealable order. Preblich v. Battley, 181 F.3d 1048, 1055–56 (9th Cir.1999). Second, the court did not intend that the order be anything other than final as to Ford's exemption objection. In the excerpt of the transcript of the May 3, 2018 hearing, this court merely recognized Debtor's right to amend the exemption at a later date -- a right every debtor, with some exceptions, has under FRBP 1007. Importantly, after recognizing that right to amend, the court also added that if an amended exemption was filed, the court would "deal with any objections that follow." (emphasis added. Motion at p. 3. FRBP Rule 4003(b)(1) allows for the filing of an objection to any amendment within 30 days after the amendment is filed. Accordingly, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply. Third, Debtor did not file a timely opposition to the Trustee's objection to her amended exemption.
In sum, likelihood of success on appeal has not been established by Debtor and, on that basis alone the motion cannot be granted as to the Exemption Order.
Irreparable Injury
Debtor has not presented any substantive argument or facts indicating she will suffer irreparable injury if a stay is not granted. The court notes that the settlement proceeds currently being held by the Trustee cannot be distributed without an order of this court on notice to creditors and Debtor. The failure to satisfy this prong alone warrants denial of the motion as to the Exemption Order.
Substantial Harm to the Trustee
The only potential harm to the Trustee if a stay is imposed would be to prevent the Trustee from seeking to pay administrative expenses of the estate from the
10:30 AM
settlement proceeds during the pendancy of the appeal. The court does not consider this to be a "substantial" harm. However, as Debtor has not satisfied the first and second prongs, the lack of substantial harm to the Trustee is effectively irrelevant.
Harm to the Public Interest
The court perceives of no harm to the public interest if a stay were imposed. However, as Debtor has not satisfied the first and second prongs, the lack of substantial harm to the public interest is effectively irrelevant.
Equitable Mootness
As Debtor has not met all of the requirements for the imposition of a stay pending appeal based on the court's analysis above, the court need not decide the issue of equitable mootness. Should Debtor seeks a stay from the BAP, the issue will be determined by the BAP.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Jonathan A Michaels Eric P Israel
Aaron E de Leest
10:30 AM
Docket 226
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 228
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant motion to extend the time to assume to and including December 6, 2019.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 230
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant motion to extend the time to assume to and including December 6, 2019.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 232
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant motion to extend the time to assume to and including December 6, 2019.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 94
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant motion to extend the time to assume to and including December 6, 2019.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Docket 96
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant motion to extend the time to assume to and including December 6, 2019.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Docket 98
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant motion to extend the time to assume to and including December 6, 2019.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01035 SJO Investments, LLC v. Gilbert-Bonnaire
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
In light of Plaintiff's most recently filed pleading indicating its intent not to prosecute this adversary proceeding, dismiss adversary with prejudice and deny Defendant's motion for protective order as moot.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall lodge an order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Represented By
Andrew Edward Smyth
Defendant(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Represented By
Andrew Edward Smyth
Plaintiff(s):
SJO Investments, LLC Represented By Jon Alan Enochs
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 40
NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to correct service issue and file amended disclosure statement no later than September 26, 2019.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service:
Service is untimely under FRBP 2002(b) and LBR 3017 -- 28 days notice of time to file objection to disclosure statement. As objections are due 14 days prior to the hearing, a total of 42 days' notice is required. Here, only 36 days' notice was given.
Creditors were not noticed with the deadline for filing objections to approval of the disclosure statement. See Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Approving Disclosure Statement.
It would be wise for Debtor to serve secured creditors per 7004(b) in light of Debtor's unconventional plan treatment as to certain secured creditors.
Merits:
Debtor shall use non-military dates, e.g., January 4, 2017 and not 4 January
10:30 AM
2017. All dates in the disclosure statement must be so corrected.
Under Section II.A., there shall be separate headings for each property and its estimated value, e.g., 1. 1210 Alta Vista Drive, Bakersfield, California ("Alta Vista Property") - Estimated Fair Market Value: $90,000. As currently, drafted, it is very difficult to follow the discussion of each property and liens against each.
There is an inconsistency in the DS re the third position lien of Medeiros Charitable Remainder Trust ("Medeiros"). This lien secures debt of $31,166.68 and is cross-collateralized by both the Burchfield and Norwalk Properties (3rd position lien on both properties). On page 9 of the DS, Debtor also mentions a fourth position lien on the Burchfield property, that of the Georgia M Bank Living Trust ("Georgia M"). However, though Medeiros has a recorded 3rd position lien on the Burchfield property, such lien is not treated at all under the plan. Instead, the Georgia M lien is elevated from 4th to 3rd position. See DS at p. 27. Even though Medeiros is cross-collateralized, the court is unaware of any legal basis for "stripping" a valid lien under these circumstances.
Though there are at least two undersecured creditors -- Medeiros as to the Burchfield property and Real Estate Services, Inc. ("RES") as to the Alta Vista property, there is no mention of 11 U.S.C. 1111(b)(1)(A) and 1111(b)(2) and the rights of such undersecured creditors to make an 1111(b) election, not to mention the impact such an election would have on the feasibility of Debtor's plan.
Page 11: At line 8, the "principal of the business" should be modified to the "principal of the Debtor."
Page 13: At paragraph 4, Debtor should simply state that it is seeking to sell the Burchfield and Norwalk properties. In fact, every reference in the DS to "liquidating" properties should be changed to "selling" properties. The language in the DS is unnecessarily cumbersome.
Page 16: As the LA County Tax Assessor has filed a proof of claim asserting a secured claim, it should be treated as a secured creditor and not a priority creditor under the plan. Also, there is a small typo re the Kern County tax claim --
10:30 AM
should be $1,032.09 instead of $1.032.09. Same typo appears in the plan at p. 7.
Page 26: At lines 21-22, "$075.00" needs to be changed to "$75.00". Same in plan at p. 17.
Page 27: Class 2G -- this is the curious treatment of Georgia M as a third priority lienholder on the Burchfield property when Medeiros actually holds this position.
At various places in the DS, e.g., the treatment of Classes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, etc., provide that if the particular property is not liquidated (sold) within 12 months of the effective date, the affected secured creditor can proceed with foreclosure under state law but no deficiency will be permitted against "the Debtor or its affiliates." Who are Debtor's "affiliates?"
Page 34: Line 20 reads "Debtor is a real estate professional (broker?) and capable of handling the sale itself". However, Debtor is described earlier in the the DS as merely a holding company. Is it Debtor's principal who is the real estate professional? Also, the DS should disclose that the Norwalk sale is scheduled to close this month (per the purchase agreement). Is that likely to happen? The court is not aware of any pending motion to sell.
Page 35: The representation regarding Debtor as a real estate professional is repeated. Needs to be corrected if not true.
Page 35: Debtor projects that the sale of the Burchfield property will net
$126,100 based upon a value of $130,000 and. Further, the $126,100 plus an additional $22,445 of "added value" funds from Debtor's principal will pay the property tax claim of $1,032.09, and Classes 2E, 2F and 2G* in full. However, the math does not work. $126,100 + 22,445 = $148,545. $1,032.09 + 95,000 + 15,000 + $37,500 = $148,545 PLUS $832 x 4 mos ($3,328) = $151,873.
According to the DS, the amounts owed to Classes 2E, 2F and 2G were as of March 16, 2019. According to Debtor's most recent MOR, three postpetition payments to Lendinghome ($832/mo) were not made as of July 2019.
Presumably, no payment was made in August either. Accordingly, as of August, total postpetition payments owed to Lendinghome was $3,329.00. This number
10:30 AM
increases each month that payments are not made and a plan is not confirmed.
*The DS at p. 35, Line 13 erroneously refers to 2D instead of 2G.
Where will the funds come from to enable Debtor's principal to make the
$25,000 added value payment?
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR:5-16-19; 7-16-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Debtor's counsel will need to address the following issues:
The projected adequate protection payments listed on Exhibit A requires explanation:
The projection provides for monthly adequate protection payments for all three properties of only $1700, yet the debt service on the Norwalk property alone is $3300 per month (1st and 2nd).
The artificially low adequate protection payments skews the projections -- in reality, Debtor will be operating at a significant deficit for all 6 months, especially after property taxes, insurance, maintenance and management fees are added.
It is not clear from the projections whether Debtor is paying $100 in management fees per month for one, two or all three properties. Who is the property manager?
The projections include rent for the Burchfield property of $1300 but there is no evidence that Debtor has procured a tenant for that property.
10:30 AM
The monthly operating report for March shows no income and no expenses for any property.
Debtor does not plan to file a cash collateral motion. So, how will the projected expenses for the properties be paid?
Claims Bar Date: July 30, 2019 (notice to creditors by 5/30/19;
declaration re non-opp must be
filed by 5/23)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl St.: Aug. 1, 2019
Continued status conference: July 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report
must be filed by July 9. 2019.
Special Note: The continued chapter 11 status conference is being continued less than 60 days to allow the court to monitor the progress of this case, including a review of the April and May MORs.
Note: Appearance at this status conference is required.
July 16, 2019
The updated status report filed in 7/9/19 does not address the following issues:
Debtor indicated at the 5/16/19 hearing that an inside buyer would be purchasing the Norwalk property and that a motion to sell would be filed within 30 days of the hearing, i.e., June 16, 2019. To date, no such motion has been filed.
Debtor represents that no cash collateral is being used -- so how are the properties being maintained? Landscaping? Property management fees? What was the source of the payment of $674 for office supplies?
10:30 AM
Debtor represents that two of the properties generate monthly combined income of $3450 per month. However, the most recent MOR shows income of only $3214.
Why does the Burchfield property remain unrented after four months?
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
September 5, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as the continued hearing re approval of the Disclosure Statement. Updated status report not required.
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
Docket 20
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Withdrawal of Objection to Claim of Internal Revenue Service, filed 8/7/2019 - td (8/8/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jesse Pedroza Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(OSC Issued 7/25/2019)
Docket 7
SPECIAL NOTE: Application for Permission for Debtor to Appear Telephonically at OSC Hearing, or in the Alternative Request to Continue Hearing on OSC filed 8/30/2019; Order on Application Lodged in LOU on 8/30/2019, Order #8925206 - td (8/30/2019)
September 5, 2019
Based upon the Declaration of Jesse Vaugh Ray submitted in support of the Response to the Order to Show Cause Why Case Should not be Dismissed ("OSC"), the OSC is vacated and the matter shall be taken off calendar.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Jesse Vaughn Ray Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 157
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Before the court will approve the Motion, Debtor's counsel will need to address the following issues:
Service:
Service to the "County of Riverside District Attorney" is insufficient in light of 1) Debtor seeks approval of a priming lien that would be superior to the County of Riverside's lien, 2) service is not to the attention of a particular person, and 3) as the lien secures the debt of Debtor's tenant, there is no obvious connection to Debtor, further necessitating proper service.
What is Debtor's exit strategy for this case? To pay the IRS and then dismiss the case? If so, what will prevent the need for a subsequent bankruptcy filing if Debtor cannot pay the $1M advance to PBC by January 31, 2020?
When do the $15,000 interest payments re the $1M advance commence. How will Debtor make that payment as well as the $5,000+ payment for the first PBC loan?
10:30 AM
How will Debtor make payments to PBC and to the County for its substantial property tax delinquency?
Are there any unsecured creditors?
On the face of the Motion, it appears Debtor is seeking a quick way to pay the IRS claim without any articulated thought as to how it will actually perform under the modified agreement with PBC.
September 5, 2019
No opposition by the Riverside District Attorney has been filed as of September 3, 2019 (deadline was August 29, 2019). Accordingly, the motion is unconditionally granted.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be immediately notified.
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01172 Pacific Western Bank v. Gaglio et al
Docket 29
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Grant partial summary judgment as to Defendant Laura Gagio only as to the First Claim for Relief (727(a)(2); Deny partial summary judgment as to the First Claim for relief as to Defendant Jack Gaglio. Grant partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to the Second Claim for Relief (523(a)(6)).
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Summary judgment must be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FRCP 56(a); see also In re Kaypro, 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)(restating same).
The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a disputed issue of material fact. Celotex, supra, at 323. Once such a showing has been made, the non-moving party must present "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." FRCP56(e). The party opposing summary judgment "may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation." Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 114 (2d. Cir. 1998). Moreover, not every disputed factual issue is material in light of the substantive law that governs the case. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the
2:00 PM
suit under the governing law will properly preclude summary judgment."
Anderson, supra, at 248.
When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out ‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case." Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001)(citing Celotex, supra, at 325)(en banc). "Under the federal summary judgment] standard a moving defendant may shift the burden of producing evidence to the nonmoving plaintiff merely by ‘showing’ - that is, pointing out through argument - the absence of evidence to support plaintiff’s claim." Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 532 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Devereaux, supra, at 1076 ("When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out ‘that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.’"). "The Ninth Circuit has explained that ‘showing’ a lack of evidence may be done simply by argument." Speier v. Argent Mgmt., LLC (In re Palmdale Hills Prop., LLC), 577 B.R. 858 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2017).
First Claim for Relief - Denial of Discharge - 727(a)(2)(A)
Courts have held that a debtor may be denied a discharge under 727(a)(2)
(A) when the debtor is shown to have concealed an equitable interest in property held nominally by a third party. In re Ogalin, 303 B.R. 552, 557-58 (Bankr.D.Conn.2004 ( "Chapter 7 debtor's knowing acquiescence in scheme by his wife to divert assets acquired by debtor's and his wife's labor in family-owned business away from claims of their creditors, by placing assets, including home in which family lived, in name of their 20–year–old daughter, was sufficient to warrant denial of debtor's discharge under 727(a)(2)(A), where debtor continued to enjoy beneficial use of assets, and this use continued into one-year reach-back period of “fraudulent transfer” discharge exception). A “continuing concealment” doctrine is well-settled in sister Circuits. Under the classic formulation of that doctrine, a debtor's transfer of legal title to property prior to one year before the bankruptcy petition date, coupled with a retention of certain attributes of beneficial ownership into the one-year reach-back period of Section 727(a)(2)(A), can constitute a “concealment” within the meaning of that Section. Id. See also, Rosen v. Bezner (In re Rosen), 996 F.2d 1527, 1532 (3d Cir.1993); In re Olivier,
2:00 PM
819 F.2d 550, 553 (5th Cir.1987); In re Kauffman, 675 F.2d 127, 128 (7th Cir.1981).
In this case there are numerous issues of material fact concerning the formation and operation of the dairy brokerage company known as JJ's Dairy Group, LLC ("Company.") as well as compensation Defendant Jack Gaglio receives from the Company and his alleged equitable interest in the Company. See, e.g., Plaintiff's disputed issues of material fact #s 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28,
30. These disputed matters should be resolved in the pending state court action for which this court has already granted relief from stay.
However, there appear to be no disputed issues of fact as to Defendant Laura Gaglio.
Second Claim for Relief -- 523(a)(6)
This court agrees with the analysis and reasoning of the court in In re Vanwinkle, 562 BR 671 (Bankr.E.D.KY 2016), a case in which alleged fraudulent conduct occured after the objecting creditor obtained a contract based judgment against the debtors. The court ruled that:
Section 523(a)(6) provides that a § 727 discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt ... for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). “From the plain language of the statute, the judgment must be for an injury that is both willful and malicious. The absence of one creates a dischargeable debt.” Markowitz v. Campbell (In re Markowitz), 190 F.3d 455, 463 (6th Cir. 1999).
The Supreme Court narrowly defined the scope of the § 523(a)(6) exception to discharge, holding that it only applied to “acts done with the actual intent to cause injury,” and not to “acts, done intentionally, that cause injury.” Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61, 118 S.Ct. 974, 140 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998). As the Sixth Circuit summarized in Markowitz, “unless ‘the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or ... believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it,’ ... he has not committed a ‘willful and malicious injury’ as defined under § 523(a)(6).” Markowitz, 190 F.3d at 464 *679 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A, at 15 (1964)). The allegations in the Amended Complaint do not contain any facts that suggest the contract debt that was liquidated to judgment by the Kentucky state court was based on willful and malicious conduct. The allegations only describe possibly willful and malicious conduct that occurred after the Kentucky state court
2:00 PM
found liability in the Partial Summary Judgment. Hence, the § 523(a)(6) cause of action must fail for the same reasons the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim failed.
The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The allegations in the Amended Complaint paint an unattractive picture of a scheme to prevent collection of the Plaintiffs' State Court Judgment. But the allegations do not establish a case for non- dischargeability under §§ 523(a)(2)(a) and (a)(6) because the alleged fraudulent scheme had nothing to do with the creation of the underlying liability. (emphasis added)
In this case, several years transpired between the creation of the debt (and entry of the contract-based state court judgment) and the creation of the Company. As a matter of law, the debt is not one based on willful and malicious injury.
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSEPH J. GAGLIO
Objection # Ruling
Overruled
Overruled
Sustained
Sustained
Sustained
Overruled
Overruled
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
Defendant(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond
2:00 PM
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
Plaintiff(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01122 M.G.B. Construction, Inc. v. Duerscheidt
§727(a)(2)]; 2. Objection to Discharge [11 U.S.C. §727(a)(4)]
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to November 7, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at today's Status Conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
M.G.B. Construction, Inc. Represented By Scott A Kron
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/21/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 8/30/2019 (XX) - td (8/30/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01031 Escolar-Chua v. United States Department of Education et al
FR: 5-17-18; 11-15-18; 12-20-18; 5-2-19; 7-11-19; 8-1-19
Docket 6
SPECIAL NOTE: 1) Order Approving Stip. for Discharge of Educational Loan Debt, Dismissal of Certain Defendants, and to Add Educational Credit Mgmt Corp. as a Defendant in this Adv. Proceeding Entered 4/24/2018 - td (5/8/2018). 2) Order Approving Stip. RE: Determination that Student Loan is Dischargeable Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(8) as Between Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Only Entered 9/19/18. Judgment Entered 9/19/18. Two Defendants Remaining - td (9/19/2018)
OFF CALENDAR: Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation Between Plaintiff Jacqueline Escolar-Chua and Defendants Educational Credit Management Corporaiton and United States Department of Education for Entry of Judgment; Closing of Adversary Proceeding Entered 8/22/2019 - td (8/22/2019)
May 17, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Sept. 1, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Oct. 5, 2018
9:30 AM
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 15, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Nov. 1, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
John Paul Marc Z. Escolar-Chua Represented By
Christine A Kingston
Defendant(s):
Navient Solutions, LLC Represented By Robert S Lampl
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Represented By John H Kim
Educational Credit Management Represented By
Scott A Schiff
Wells Fargo Education Financial Pro Se
University of Southern California Pro Se
United States Department of Represented By Elan S Levey
Joint Debtor(s):
Jacqueline R. Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
Plaintiff(s):
Jacqueline Escolar-Chua Represented By Christine A Kingston
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01016 Marshack v. Nelson
FR: 4-11-19; 5-30-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/7/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 8/30/2019 (XX) - td (8/30/2019)
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 30, 2019
No tentative ruling -- trail matter to the 2:00pm calendar
Debtor(s):
Kirk M. Nelson Represented By
J Scott Williams
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Kirk M Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Robert P Goe
Thomas J Eastmond
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01044 Van der Laan v. Phong
FR: 6-20-19; 8-22-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
Continue Status Conference to August 22, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
August 22, 2019
In light of pending motion for default judgment, continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
September 12, 2019
Declaration re non-opposition to pending motion for default judgment not filed. Continue status conference one final time to October 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Jacob Van der Laan Represented By John E Lattin
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01123 Will v. Madonna Zimmerman
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Another Summons Issued 7/8/2019; New Status Conference Set for 9/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m. (xx) - td (7/8/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa Will Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
10:00 AM
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON VS.
DEBTOR FR: 8-8-19
Docket 128
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving APO Entered 9/11/19- mp/td (9/11/19)
August 8, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
September 12, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Vanessa Frazier Elrousan Represented By Eliza Ghanooni
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon as Represented By
Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS.
DEBTOR FR: 8-8-19
Docket 121
OFF CALENDAR: Order approving APO Entered 9/9/19- mp/td (9/9/19)
August 8, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Bert Ranelycke-Svensson Represented By Scott Dicus
Movant(s):
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Nathan F Smith
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 111
OFF CALENDAR: Withdrawal of Declaration RE: Default Under Adequate Protection Order; Request for Entry of Order Granting Relief from Stay filed 8/21/2019 - td (8/21/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Douglas Allen Dawson Represented By Christine A Kingston
Joint Debtor(s):
Jennifer Ann Dawson Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief; deny request for 362(d)(4) extraordinary relief due to lack of evidence in support thereof.
Special Note: The Motion indicates on p. 3 in paragraph 4(a)(2)(D) that other bankruptcy cases have been filed. However, no additional bankruptcy cases are identified in paragraph 18 of the Motion (left blank).
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By
S Renee Sawyer Blume Diana Torres-Brito Anna Landa
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION VS.
DEBTORS FR: 8-22-19
Docket 30
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation for Adequate Protection signed 9/12/19- mp
August 22, 2019
The parties are to advise the court regarding the status of this matter. If more time is need to explore a resolution, a request may be made at the time of the calendar roll call before the hearing for a continued hearing date. Available dates are September 5, 12 and 19 at 10:00 a.m.
September 12, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Esteban Carrasco Represented By Seema N Sood
Joint Debtor(s):
Maria L Carrasco Represented By Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
21st Mortgage Corporation Represented By Amy Dukes
Diane Weifenbach
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 38
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Raju Gobindlal Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
Cab West, LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 40
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Raju Gobindlal Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By
Cheryl A Skigin
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 60
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Chirag Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Movant(s):
ACAR Leasing LTD d/b/a GM Represented By Jennifer H Wang
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
David C Simon Represented By Nathan Fransen
Joint Debtor(s):
Christine Gonzalez Represented By Nathan Fransen
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Represented By
Dane W Exnowski
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. hrg. held 5/22/14)
FR: 11-20-14; 3-5-15; 9-10-15; 3-10-16; 9-8-16; 3-16-17; 9-21-17; 3-22-18;
3-29-18; 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19; 5-30-19
Docket 209
- NONE LISTED -
November 20, 2014
Continue status conference to March 5, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.,; updated status report to be filed by Feb 19, 2015. (XX)
Special note: The court would ordinarily continue the hearing 180 days. However, because of Debtor's failure to timely commence plan payments as to certain classes, the continued hearing will be heard sooner this time.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtors' responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 5, 2015
Continue status conference to September 10, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by August 27, 2015. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 10, 2015
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 10, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by February 25, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
March 10, 2016
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 8, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 28, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 8, 2016
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 2, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
March 16, 2017 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 31, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
September 21, 2017
Comments:
The report re Class 6 appears to be a cut and paste from the Sixth Postconfirmation Status Report -- has Debtor made quarterly distributions in 2017?
Does Debtor intend to seek a final decree prior to 2024, notwithstanding that plan payments will continue until 2024?
March 29, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to October 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by September 27, 2018 (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee
10:30 AM
requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
October 11, 2018
Updated postconfirmation status report not timely filed. Impose sanctions against Debtor's counsel in the amount of $100.00 for failure to timely file an updated status report.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed no later than March 7, 2019 and should specifically address
1) Debtor's employment status, and 2) the status of plan arrearages as to Class 2(c). (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements
March 21, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; An updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 and such report shall address the following:
the amount of arrears for each class that is not current as of May 1, 2019, and 2) the status of her employment. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the
10:30 AM
UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
May 30, 2019
Continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 29, 2019. (XX)
Special note: The court is concerned about Debtor's continuing plan default as to Class 2(c).
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 12, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 24, 2019 (XX)
Special note: The court is concerned about Debtor's continuing plan default as to Class 2(c). If Debtor continues to fail to make payments to this creditor, absent a loan modification, the court will issue an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal immediately following the November 7, 2019 status conference.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Alma Theresa Tejadilla Reyes Represented By
Ivan M Lopez Ventura Jeffrey V Hernandez
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:13-01220 Bobinski v. Savastano
Docket 175
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Examinee Guadalupe Savastano to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk. Thereafter, the examination will take place outside the courtroom
Debtor(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Defendant(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Plaintiff(s):
Richard Bobinski Represented By Crystal Bergstrom
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By
Karen S Naylor (TR)
10:30 AM
Docket 579
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of U.S. Trustee's Motion to Dismiss
or Convert Debtor's Case Under 11 U.S.C. §1112(b) filed 8/28/2019 - td (8/28/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
Docket 52
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant motion.
Special Note: The motion to dismiss the adversary filed by the Woos was granted on August 22, 2019 but an order has not yet been lodged.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
10:30 AM
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Kaufman Related Mamagement Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Related Management, a New York Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Movant(s):
Kaufman Wu Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Kaufman Related Mamagement Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Related Management, a New York Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels Kent Salveson
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 88
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
AA-TEK Machining, Inc. Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery Kelly H. Zinser
10:30 AM
[ZINSER LAW GROUP, PC, GENERAL COUNSEL FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 83
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested, LESS $500.00 in attorneys fees for failure to timely file an employment application.
Applicant waited more than two years to file an employment application and stated no persuasive reason for not filing a timely application.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
AA-TEK Machining, Inc. Represented By Tina H Trinh
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery Kelly H. Zinser
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANT FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 75
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
AA-TEK Machining, Inc. Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Wesley H Avery Kelly H. Zinser
10:30 AM
(Set at Ch 11 Plan hrg. held 11-15-18) FR: 5-16-19
Docket 100
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Debtor's Motion for a Final Decree and Closing the Case Entered 7/15/2019 - td (7/15/2019)
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to Sept. 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 29, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee; it is Debtor's responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Tri-Star Construction and Represented By Michael R Totaro
10:30 AM
Docket 64
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Taking Hearing on Application Off Calendar, filed 8/22/2019. Order Denying Approval of Disclosure Statement and Dismissing Chapter 11 Case Without Prejudice Entered 8/9/2019 - td (8/22/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels Jeffrey P Spencer
10:30 AM
[THE SPENCER LAW FIRM, SPECIAL COUNSEL]
Docket 65
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Taking Hearing on Application Off Calendar, filed 8/22/2019. Order Denying Approval of Disclosure Statement and Dismissing Chapter 11 Case Without Prejudice Entered 8/9/2019 - td (8/22/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels Jeffrey P Spencer
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 5-16-19; 6-13-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on UST's motion to dismiss case. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
June 13, 2019
Claims Bar Date: 8/22/19 (notice to creditors by 6/20/19)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: 8/29/19 (no extensions will be granted)
Continued Status Conf: 9/12/19 at 10:30 a.m. (XX) Updated Status Report due: 8/29/19 -- waived if Plan/DS timely filed
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this status conference are not required -- the court will issue its own order re the same.
10:30 AM
September 12, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to notice a hearing date on approval of its Disclosure Statement. (XX)
Special Note: This court does not set hearings on approval of disclosure statements. Counsel for the debtor must self-calendar hearings.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee. It is Debtor's responsibility to ascertain its compliance status prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
Docket 107
NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019 Overrule Objection. Basis for Tentative Ruling
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
10:30 AM
In this case, Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001. The Claim was filed on Official Form 410 and included supporting documentation, such as evidence of the outstanding debt. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039.
Community Debt
Debtor also argues that the debt owed to First Financial Credit Union ("FFCU") is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2).
Allocation of Community Debt
Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing FFCU's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection on the basis of assigned liability to
10:30 AM
Mr. Richards.
Claim Amount
Debtor has not presented evidence regarding the prepetition arrearage sufficient to rebut the presumed validity of the proof of claim filed by FFCU. As correctly pointed out by FFCU in its Opposition, postpetition mortgage payments made after May 1, 2019 (petition date) cannot be applied to prepetition payments in a chapter 13 case. Rather, postpetition payments must be applied to postpetition mortgage debt becoming due after the filing of the petition. Any prepetition arrearages are paid as part of the chapter 13 plan payment on terms set forth in the plan. Debtor has presented confirmation of a mortgage payment made in July 2019 -- after the petition was filed. Thus, if a mortgage payment became due on May 1, 2019 and Debtor made a payment on May 2, 2019, the May 2 payment cannot be applied to the prepetition May 1 obligation. While it is possible that Debtor is ahead one month on a postpetition basis, this does not affect the amount of debt that was owed prepetition. The court has reviewed the mortgage proof of claim attachment and notes that FFCU acknowledges receiving a payment on May 1, 2019 that was applied to the April 1, 2019 obligation. Debtor states she made another payment on May 2, 2019 (postpetition) which, if true, would not be applied by FFCU retroactively.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01135 Richards v. Richards
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant motion to remand matter to state court pursuant to 28 USC 1452(b); Deny motion for attorneys fees and/or sanctions under 28 USC 1447 and FRBP 9011.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor removed the subject state court action, Case #30-2018-00986705, entitled Alicia Marie Richards v. Ryal W. Richards (the "Action") to this court on July 8, 2019. The Notice of Removal indicates that the removal is made pursuant to, inter alia, 28 USC 1441 and 28 USC 1452(a).
The Action asserts causes of action for Fraud, Sexual Conduct, Right of Privacy, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation of Character, Threats and Spousal Abuse, Breach of Contract and Covenants, Detriment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Action also includes a demand for a jury trial.
The Action is related to longstanding marital dissolution/family law litigation between Debtor, her ex-spouse and others. There are several appeals pending in Orange County Superior Court ("State Court") concerning matters related to the family law proceedings, including one involving Debtor's attempt to set aside a stipulated judgment.
10:30 AM
As a preliminary matter, 28 USC 1441(a), the general federal removal statutue has no application in this matter. Section 1441(a) on its face only applies to removals by defendants. The statute provides in pertinent part: "[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States . . . ." (emphasis added). Section 1441(a) does not apply to plaintiffs and, therefore, a plaintiff in state court action, as is the case here, may not remove a matter to this court under Section. 1441(a). See, Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 106–109 (1941) ("the plaintiff was not entitled to remove the cause from the state court to federal court . . . since the plaintiff was not a “defendant” within statute [28 USC 1441(a)] authorizing removal only by defendant); and Home Depot U. S. A., Inc.
v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019) (reaffirming its interpretation of 1441(a) in
Shamrock).
In light of the foregoing, the Action was improperly removed under 1441(a). However, the analysis does not end here as Debtor also cited 28 USC 1452(a) which specifically governs removals to bankruptcy cases.
Section 1452(b) allows the court to remand a removed action on "any equitable ground." The court finds that equitable grounds for remand exist in this matter based upon the following:
The Action involves exclusively state law issues and no federal question or bankruptcy law issues;
There are multiple non-debtor parties involved in the Action;
There is no jurisdictional basis other than 28 USC 1334;
Though this matter may relate to a bankruptcy case, it does not arise under a bankruptcy case or under bankruptcy law;
As this this matter was proceeding in state court and is related to other family law proceedings, some or all of which are currently on appeal before state appellate courts, it appears that Debtor is seeking an alternative forum to resolve what is purely a family law matter which should be adjudicated in state court.
10:30 AM
The court declines to award attorneys fees under 28 USC 1447(c) as the court is not persuaded that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, which is implicated by 1447(c);
The court declines to award sanctions under FRBP 9011 as Movant has not complied with Rule 9011(c)(1)(A), the so-called "safe harbor" provision which requires service of the motion for sanctions 21 days prior to filing with the court to permit the responding party to withdraw the offending pleading.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Ryal W. Richards Represented By Kevin E Robinson
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01135 Richards v. Richards
7. Breach of Contract and Covenants; 8. Detriment; 9. Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case Number
30-2018-00986705-CU-FR-CJC) FR: 8-15-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Continue this status conference to September 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on pending motion to remand. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's status conference are waived (no appearance required).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 12, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of granting of motion to remand to state court.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
10:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Ryal W. Richards Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
FR: 1-31-19; 2-12-19; 4/18/19; 7-11-19; 7-16-19
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 11/21/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 8/30/2019 (XX) - td (8/30/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Represented By
Todd C. Ringstad
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
2:00 PM
Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
(Another Summons Issued 9/13/18)
FR: 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4/18/19; 7-11-19, 7-16-19
Docket 3
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/21/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 8/30/2019 (XX) - td (8/30/2019)
January 31, 2019
Continued to March 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Pro Se
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
2:00 PM
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17; 8-31-17;
4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 6-20-19
Docket 73
CONTINUED: Motion Continued to 10/3/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order Entered 9/12/2019 (XX) - td (9/12/2019)
March 12, 2019
Continue status conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date. Court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not be Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction in light of the assignment of this adversary to Debtors pursuant to global settlement between Trustee and Debtors approved by the Court at hearing on January 31, 2019. The OSC hearing will also be held on April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Once the adversary proceeding is dismissed, Debtors will be free to initiate new litigation against the defendant in any nonbankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Movant(s):
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By
9:30 AM
Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 3-12-15; 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17;
8-31-17; 4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 6-20-19
Docket 59
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 10/3/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order Entered 9/12/2019 (XX) - td (9/12/2019)
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By
9:30 AM
Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson
9:30 AM
Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01042 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
FR: 5-17-18; 11-15-18; 3-21-19; 5-9-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendants Nationwide Life Insurance Company and Nationwide Life and Annuity Company filed 11/20/2018. Amended Order Approving Motion for Approval of Global Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Adversary Actions with Prejudice Entered 8/27/2019 - td (8/27/2019)
May 17, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Sept. 20, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: n/a
9:30 AM
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 15, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Nov. 1, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
November 15, 2018
Continue pre-trial conference to January 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by January 10, 2019.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Represented By Christopher L Blank
Kevin Liebeck Represented By Christopher L Blank
Mark Ziebold Represented By
J Scott Williams
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Represented By Christopher L Blank
Jodi Denise Steelman Represented By Christopher L Blank
9:30 AM
Nationwide Life Insurance Company Represented By
Daniel M Anderson John C Cannizzaro
Nationwide Life and Annuity Represented By Daniel M Anderson John C Cannizzaro
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch Reem J Bello Jeffrey I Golden
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 7-27-17; 9-21-17, 4-12-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19;
5-9-19; 6-18-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Granting Plaintiff Woodlawn Colonial, L.P.'s Motion (1) to Dismiss Plaintiff's First & Second Claims for Relief; & (2) for Entry of Judgment on Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief Entered 9/6/2019; Non-Dischargeable Judgment Entered 9/6/2019. Remaining Issue is Defendant's Counterclaim fld 6/12/17, dkt #7 - td (9/6/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/21/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 9/9/2019 (XX) - td (9/9/2019)
July 27, 2017
No tentative ruling -- the disposition of the status conference will depend upon the outcome of Plaintiff's motion for stay of the adversary proceeding, which set on today's 10:30am calendar.
September 21, 2017
Impose sanctions against counsel for Plaintiff in the amount of $100 for failure to file joint status report as required by LBR 7016-1.
Discovery Cut-off Date: Jan. 18, 2018
9:30 AM
Deadline to File Pretrial Motions: Feb. 1, 2018
Reserved hearing date re Pretrial Motions: Mar. 8, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (xx) Pretrial Conference: Apr. 12, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Pretrial Stipulation Mar. 29, 2018
Special Note: Defendant's counterclaim may be moot in light of the sale of the truck by the Trustee.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
July 19, 2018
In light of pending appeal, continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., updated status report must be filed by September 13, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 29, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
March 21, 2019
Continue status conference to May 9, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at the March 21, 2019 status conference are not required.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01153 Hinker v. Hinker
FR: 12-14-17; 3-22-18; 3-29-18; 6-21-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18; 4-18-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
March 29, 2018
Continue status conference to June 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated report re status of state court action must be filed by June 7, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 21, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated report re status of state court action must be filed by September 7, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 29, 2018. (XX)
Special Note: The status report for December 6, 2018 should provide a
9:30 AM
substantive update of the status/procedural posture of the state court action.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending state court litigation, continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 5, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
September 19, 2019
In light of the upcoming trial in the state court litigation, continue status conference to December 5, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 21, 2019.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Todd Leroy Hinker Represented By
Diane L Mancinelli
Defendant(s):
Todd Leroy Hinker Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Christine Hinker Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01125 Sabha v. California State Board Of Equalization
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Another Summons Issued 8/1/2019; New Status Conference Set for 10/17/2019 at 9:30 a.m. (xx) - td (8/1/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mohammad R Sabha Represented By Bruce A Boice
Defendant(s):
California State Board Of Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mohammad R Sabha Represented By Bruce A Boice
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
FR: 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19; 8-22-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
No tentative ruling. This tentative will be trailed to the 2:00 p.m. calendar along with the Motion to Dismiss
September 19, 2019
In light of the upcoming trial in the state court litigation, continue status conference to December 5, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 21, 2019.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Pro Se
Cheri Lynn Natzic Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
Kevin Meek
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01205 Pero v. Tak
FR: 2-7-19; 3-12-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation for Judgment Entered 8/22/2019 - td (8/23/2019)
March 12, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: August 1, 2019
Deadline to Attend Mediation: September 5, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Sept. 19, 2019 at 9:30a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Sept. 5, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
William C Tak Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
William C Tak Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Joseph W Pero Represented By Ryan T Koczara
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01078 Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Dulac, Trustees o v. Dulac et al
FR: 7-18-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
July 18, 2019
Continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow the chapter 7 trustee the opportunity to intervene. (XX)
Special Note: It appears the complaint is seeking relief against property of the bankruptcy estate and, therefore, the chapter 7 trustee would be an indispensable party.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time (including service to the chapter 7 trustee).
September 19, 2019
Continue status conference to December 5, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 21, 2019.
Special comment: The court notes that though the Trustee signed the Joint Status Report on 9/17/19, the Trustee dismissed her Complaint in Intervention on 9/16/19.
9:30 AM
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Defendant(s):
Ronald H. Dulac Pro Se
Lillian Sikanovski Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Represented By
Ronald Appel
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01040 Lee v. Phong
(Another Summons Issued 4/15/2019) FR: 7-11-19; 7-16-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Default Judgment Entered 8/30/2019 - td (8/30/2019)
July 16, 2019
Continue Status Conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 5, 2019. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at
9:30 AM
this hearing is not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued status conference.
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict Luke P Daniels
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Benjamin Lee Represented By Jason K Boss
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
(Another Summons Issued 4-8-19) FR: 7-11-19; 7-16-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Another Summons Issued 8/7/2019; New Status Conference Set for 11/7/2019 at 9:30 a.m. (xx) - td (8/7/2019)
July 16, 2019
Status report has not been filed as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1.
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01123 Will v. Madonna Zimmerman
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Continue status conference to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by December 5, 2019.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Relief from stay was granted to permit the probate matter to proceed on all issues other than a determination regarding ownership of the subject property. See Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's Opposition to the RFS Motion at
p. 2, lines 27-28. In order to award "damages" the probate court must necessarily determine whether Defendant's alleged conduct warrants a judgment of damages in Plaintiff's favor. Accordingly, Defendant's interpretation of the scope of the stay relief granted is flawed.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa Will Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01126 American Outdoor Gears, LLC v. Shewa
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 31, 2019
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Dec. 20, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Jan. 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Jan. 16, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Raju Gobindlal Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Defendant(s):
Raju Gobinal Shewa Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
American Outdoor Gears, LLC Represented By Michael A Ortiz
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01129 Gama World Technologies, Inc. v. Shewa
U.S.C. Section 727(a) et seq.; and For Injunctive Relief
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Dec. 19, 2019
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 23, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Feb. 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Feb. 6, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Raju Gobindlal Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Defendant(s):
Raju Shewa Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Gama World Technologies, Inc. Represented By Esther P Holm
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Bryan Leifer Paul Y. Lee
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01134 American Outdoor Gears, LLC v. Shewa
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Dec. 19, 2019
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 23, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Feb. 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Feb. 6, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Chirag Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Defendant(s):
Chirag Shewa Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
American Outdoor Gears, LLC Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Michael A Ortiz Edward G Operini
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Grant motion with without 4001(a)(3) waiver and with co-debtor relief.
Special Note: The tentative ruling is to grant the Motion because Debtor did not provide documentary proof of payments he alleges to have made. If Movant is agreeable to a continuance to discuss a resolution, the parties may request a continuance of the hearing at the beginning of the calendar roll call. Available dates are Oct. 10, Oct. 17 and Nov. 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Ranulfo Figueroa Represented By Sunita N Sood Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Mark T. Domeyer Daniel K Fujimoto
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Caren J Castle
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Huong Thi Le Represented By
Michael Jones
Movant(s):
TOYOTA LEASE TRUST Represented By
Erica T Loftis Pacheco
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 88
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Movant(s):
Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jennifer H Wang
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC VS.
DEBTOR FR: 9-12-19
Docket 49
NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief; deny request for 362(d)(4) extraordinary relief due to lack of evidence in support thereof.
Special Note: The Motion indicates on p. 3 in paragraph 4(a)(2)(D) that other bankruptcy cases have been filed. However, no additional bankruptcy cases are identified in paragraph 18 of the Motion (left blank).
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
September 19, 2019
10:00 AM
Movant to advise the court re the status of this matter.
If additional time is needed, Movant may request a continuance during the tentative ruling call prior to the hearing. Available dates: Oct. 3, 10 or 17, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By
S Renee Sawyer Blume Diana Torres-Brito Anna Landa
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant Motion for damages as to the Complaint for Breach of Contract filed September 14, 2018 -- damages shall consist of all attorneys fees charged by Debtor's state court counsel, The Amin Law Group Ltd, from December 18, 2018 through and including May 7, 2019 as well as
$1500 in bankruptcy attorneys fees charged by attorney David Lally; Deny the Motion as to the First Amended Complaint for Intentional Torts.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This case was filed as a chapter 7 on April 3, 2012.
The deadline to file a nondischargeability complaint was July 16, 2012. The notice of the commencement of the case and the deadline for filing nondischargeability complaints was served on creditors by mail on April 7, 2012. See BNC Notice, Docket #8. The commencement notice specifically advises creditors: "Please Do Not File a Proof of Claim Unless You Receive a Notice To Do So." See Docket #6.
By Debtor's own admission, Creditor Sal Aridi ("Creditor") was not listed as a creditor on Debtor's mailing matrix or schedules.
The chapter 7 trustee filed a No Asset Report on May 30, 2012.
10:30 AM
Debtor received a discharge on July 25, 2012. See Docket #25
Debtor asserts that Creditor received actual notice of the bankruptcy case by an email Debtor sent to Creditor on September 24, 2012. See Motion, Decl. of Debtor Kosta Majdalani at paragraph 24 and Exh. 2 attached thereto.
On September 24, 2018, Creditor filed in Orange County Superior Court ("State Court") a complaint for breach of contract ("Original Complaint"). See Motion, Exh. 3. The Original Complaint alleged that Creditor had loaned Debtors Kosta and Therese Majdalani $46,000, and that Debtors failed to repay the loan in full according to the loan terms, i.e., by June 2014. Motion, Exh. 3 at p. 3. The Original Complaint does not mention fraud or any other tort causes of action.
At a hearing held on May 7, 2019 in State Court, the Court granted Creditor's motion for leave to amend the Original Complaint to allege intentional torts. In granting the motion for leave to amend, the Court denied Debtors' motion for judgment on the pleadings (as to the Original Complaint and the unfiled amended complaint) as moot.
Section 523(a)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual is not entitled to a discharge for any unlisted or unscheduled debt of a creditor whose debt is not of a kind specified in 523(a)(2), (4) or (6), where the creditor was not permitted to timely file a proof of claim, and the creditor did not have notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case in time to timely file a proof of claim. Stated otherwise, 523(a)(3)(A) is intended to protect a creditor's right to file a proof of claim and to participate in any distribution of assets of the estate. However, in no-asset cases, creditors are instructed not to file proofs of claim until and unless assets have been located. Thus, in a no-asset case, there is no deadline for filing proofs of claim and as a consequence the failure to list or schedule a debt does not deprive the creditor of the ability to timely file a claim. In such cases, the 9th Circuit has held that the unlisted/unscheduled debt is discharged irrespective of its omission from the debtor's schedules. In re Beezley, 994 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993). More specifically, Beezley holds that if the omitted debt is of a type covered by 523(a)(3)(A), it is automatically discharged pursuant to Section
10:30 AM
727.
A debt based on breach of contract is not the kind of debt specified in 523(a)(2) [fraud], 523(a)(4) [fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny], or 523(a)(6) [willful and malicious injury]. Accordingly, under 523(a)(3)(A) and Beezley, an unlisted or unscheduled debt for breach of contract is discharged.
In this matter, Creditor filed the Original Complaint alleging a debt based on breach of contract, a statutorily discharged debt, on September 14, 2018. This was approximately 6 years after receiving actual notice of the bankruptcy filing. The act of filing the Original Complaint in order to collect a discharged debt violated Debtors' discharge injunction pursuant to Section 524(a)(2).
Under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2), a discharge order “operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset” a discharged debt. 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2). The discharge injunction is broad and prohibits any act taken to collect a discharged debt as a personal liability of the debtor. The United States Supreme Court recently confirmed that a bankruptcy court may impose civil contempt for violation of a discharge order when there is no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor's conduct might be lawful under the discharge order. Taggart v. Lorenzen (In re Brown), 139 S.Ct. 1795 (2019).
In this case, Creditor filed a prepetition breach of contract action against Debtors six years after he learned of the chapter 7 case. Applying the objective standard required by the Supreme Court in Taggert, there is "no fair ground of doubt" as to whether an attempt to collect on a prepetition contract claim would not be covered by Debtors' discharge order. The court finds significance in that fact that on or about October 26, 2018, just weeks after filing the contract action (asserting that Debtors failed to repay a $46,000 loan), Creditor apparently attempted to stipulate with Debtors for the filing of an amended complaint that 1) dropped all breach of contract allegations, and
re-characterized the debt as one based on intentional torts. In other words, rather than dismiss the violating complaint, Creditor chose amend around it. The end result is that the Original Complaint remained the operative pleading
10:30 AM
for eight months until the motion to amend was finally granted on May 7, 2019. During that time, Debtors were forced to participate in the defense of a discharged debt.
The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges fraud and other intentional torts that, if true, could fall under 523(a)(2), (4) or (6). The FAC is thus governed by 523(a)(3)(B) which provides that an unlisted, unscheduled debt is not discharged if it is a kind specified in 523(a)(2), (4) or (6) and the creditor did not have knowledge of the bankruptcy in time to file a nondischargeability complaint.
The deadline for filing a nondischargeability complaint in this case was July 16, 2012. According to Debtor's own evidence, Creditor did not learn about the bankruptcy until September 2012, well after the deadline. Therefore, 523(a)(3)(B) is implicated.
Though federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over 523(a)(2), (4) and
(6) proceedings, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 523(a)(3) proceedings. In re McGahn, 288 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2002). In re Franklin, 179 B.R. 913, 924 (Bankr.E.D.Cal 1995). The court agrees with the analysis of the court in Franklin:
"Because Fidelity was unscheduled, unlisted, and unaware of the bankruptcy, its section 523(a)(2) cause of action is transmuted into a section 523(a)(3)(B) cause of action. That transmutation makes very little difference as to the applicable substantive law or as to proof at trial, but makes all the difference for purposes of jurisdiction and of the limitations period. In a section 523(a)(3)(B) action, the plaintiff must prove all the elements of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2), (a)(4), or (a)(6) and, in addition, must prove that the debt was unscheduled, unlisted, and the plaintiff was unaware of the bankruptcy in time to comply with the section 523(c) sixty-day deadline. These additional elements do not add much complexity and are ordinarily not difficult to prove.
Jurisdiction over section 523(a)(3) actions, however, is concurrent state and federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 1334(b), rather than the exclusive federal jurisdiction prescribed by section 523(c). Not only may dischargeability
10:30 AM
of the fraud claim be litigated in state court, the action, like all the concurrent jurisdiction nondischargeability actions, may be filed “at any time” after the bankruptcy case is first filed. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 4007(b);28 Irons v. Santiago (In re Santiago), 175 B.R. 48, 50 (9th Cir. BAP 1994); American Standard Ins.
Co. v. Bakehorn, 147 B.R. 480 (N.D.Ind.1992); Glosser v. Parrish Real Estate (In re Grant), 160 B.R. 839, 844 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1993).
In short, the penalty to the debtor for failing to schedule a fraud debt or otherwise to inform the creditor of the bankruptcy is forfeiture of the right to enjoy exclusive federal jurisdiction and loss of the sixty-day limitations period applicable in the exclusive jurisdiction actions.
Since Franklin concedes that Fidelity was not listed in his bankruptcy schedules and did not otherwise know of the existence of his bankruptcy case before that deadline passed, the prerequisite to exclusive federal jurisdiction over Fidelity's nondischargeability action based on fraud has not been satisfied. Thus, Fidelity's nondischargeability action for fraud lies under section 523(a)(3)(B) rather than section 523(a)(2). It qualifies for the exception to the exception and may be litigated in state court. "
Based upon the foregoing, this court concludes that the State Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the FAC under 523(a)(3)(B). Accordingly, the Motion is denied as to the FAC.
Debtor(s):
Kosta M Majdalani Represented By Parisa Fishback David Brian Lally
Joint Debtor(s):
Therese J Majdalani Represented By Parisa Fishback David Brian Lally
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
[THOMAS H. CASEY, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 78
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Claudia Michel Estrada Represented By Luis G Torres Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
[THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. CASEY, INC., ATTORNEY FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 75
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Claudia Michel Estrada Represented By Luis G Torres Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, LLP, ACCOUNTANT FOR TRUSTEE]
Docket 68
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Claudia Michel Estrada Represented By Luis G Torres Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
FR: 8-17-17; 11-16-17; 2-1-18; 5-24-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-13-18;
4-18-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 17, 2017
Claims Bar Date: Oct. 23, 2017 (notice by 8/21/17)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl. Stmt: Nov. 1, 2017
Continued Status Conference: Nov. 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated
by 11/2/17 stmt has been case the no filed and the
be continued to stmt hearing. (XX)
status report to be filed unless the plan/discl. timely filed, in which status report need be status conference will the date of the discl.
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of the Debtor to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
November 16, 2017
Continue status conference to February 1, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report must be filed by January 18, 2018 unless a timely filed disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of a status report will be waived. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
February 1, 2018
Continue status conference to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed no later than May 10, 2018, unless a plan and disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of an updated report will not be required. Extend deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement to May 1, 2018. No further continuances will be granted. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
May 31, 2018
Continue chapter 11 status conference to July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; the
10:30 AM
court shall issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization or file a disclosure statement. The hearing on the OSC shall also be held on July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This court previously indicated that no further extensions of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement beyond May 1, 2018 would be granted. Debtor and its counsel apparently view the court's deadlines as mere suggestions. Nothing in Debtor's current status report justifies any further extensions. Debtor has basically "parked" itself for approximately one year in this noncomplex chapter 11 case and cavalierly intends to remained parked for at least 17 months without filing a plan and disclosure statement. This will not happen.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
July 19, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 6, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
September 20, 2018
This case has now been pending for more than a year. The status reports continue to sing the same tune about reaching a resolution with the IRS but virtually no progress has been made since the last status conference. Time is up. If a stipulation is not reached with the IRS or an adversary filed by October 15, 2018, the case will be dismissed. Given the number of
10:30 AM
continuances and time that has been granted to Debtor and the IRS with no results, the court no longer sees the need to set an Order To Show Cause re Dismissal. The case will simply be dismissed on October 16, 2018 absent a filed stipulation or adversary proceeding due to inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization.
December 13, 2018
Dismiss case due to inability of Debtor to propose a plan of reorganization. The case has been pending for 18 months without the filing of a plan and disclosure statement as previously ordered by the court. The incorporates its comments set forth in its September 20, 2018 tentative ruling (see above).
April 18, 2019
Dismiss case.
This case has now been pending for nearly two years with no contemplated plan of reorganization. Debtor wishes to continue to prop up this empty case up for the sole purpose of executing an agreement with an apparently reluctant IRS. The IRS apparently seems to have no sense of urgency regarding this case. Counsel for the IRS represented to the court on November 13, 2018 that approval from D.C. of the settlement should be obtained within 60-90 days. However, five months later, there is no approval in sight. Debtor will need to resolve its issues with the IRS outside bankruptcy.
June 20, 2019
In light of status report filed on 6/13/19 confirming approval of Debtor's settlement with the IRS by the Dept. of Justice [docket #144], continue this status conference to July 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by or before July 11, 2019 if a stipulation between Debtor and the government has not been filed by such date. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
July 18, 2019
In light of the finalization of the settlement with the IRS, continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status conference report must be filed by September 5, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
September 19, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed due to lack of necessity for reorganization on notice to all creditors. The OSC hearing shall be set for the same date/time.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
Jerome Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 90
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
The court is inclined to sustain the objection as to accrued interest and to overrule the objection as to the principal debt, i.e., $120,000.
The parties are to address the following issues: Debtor:
This court has already abstained from hearing the merits of case involving this loan in light of a pending state court action that Debtor initiated prepetition involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants. Debtor is to advise the court re the status of the state court litigation.
The court finds Debtor's argument that she doesn't owe anything to Claimant because she "never received the money," strains credulity in light of the joint venture agreement she entered into regarding the acquisition of the Sea Island property and her subsequent acknowledgement of the purchase. See Claimant's Opposition, Declaration of Angel Santiago and exhibits attached thereto; Declaration of Michael Van Ness, Exhibit 1.
Debtor's Objection does not explain or provide any legal analysis regarding relevance of Claimant's lack of a real estate license. She simply
10:30 AM
declares Claimant is not exempt from usury laws without any legal analysis. The court declines to do Debtor's research for her.
As of July 26, 2019, it appears Claimant is active and no longer suspended.
Even if the interest is usurious, the principal balance remains. Further, even if, because of the lack of notice, the note has not yet matured, the principal debt remains and has to be treated through Debtor's chapter 13 plan.
Claimant
Claimant's assertion of the nonapplicability of Cal. Civ. Code 2966 is unpersuasive in light of the fact that the note itself expressly states that "this note is subject to Section 2966 . . . which provides that the holder . . . shall give written notice to the trustor . . . at least 90 and not more than 150 days before any balloon payment is due." Thus, whether or not Section 2966 would have otherwise applied or not, Claimant clearly intended to provide the protections of Section 2966 by including it in the note that it presumably drafted. Absent notice given pursuant to the note, it has not yet matured.
The note is clearly usurious under California Constitution Article XV Section 1 as it exceeds 10% per annum. Claimant has the ultimate burden of proof and has not provided any basis for it being exempt from the usury law.
The court is not persuaded that Debtor's claim is time-barred. See Debtor's reply.
Special note: This court's ruling as to this claim objection cannot be used by or against any person or entity other than Debtor and Premier Home Solutions, Inc. in any other state or federal action. Further any ruling by this court regarding the subject proof of claim is without prejudice to Premier seeking prejudgment interest at the legal rate once notice is properly given under the note.
10:30 AM
September 19, 2019
Parties to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter. If additional time to memorialize the settlement is needed, a final continuance may be requested during the tentative ruling roll call prior to the hearing.
Available hearing dates: Oct. 10, 2019 and Oct. 17, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Sustain Objection on the basis of the statute of limitations. Disallow claim in its entirety.
Special Note: The objection is not sustained on any of the other grounds stated in the Objection.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 44
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Request to Withdraw Objection to Claim #2 - Wells Fargo Bank and Take Hearing Off Calendar, filed 9/3/2019 - td (9/3/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 51
- NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Sustain the Objection in part, and deny in part. Sustain the Objection and allow the Claim as a general unsecured claim in the amount of $70,263.40. Deny the Objection as to all other relief requested.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219
B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the
10:30 AM
claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
Debtor argues that the Claim should not be afforded prima facie validity because Claimant has failed to attach supporting documentation and the Abstract and Lien attached to the Claim are void. See, Obj., p. 5:15-6:11. This argument is unpersuasive because Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001. The Claim was filed with Official Form 410 and included a copy of the Abstract. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Debtor attempts to rebut the prima facie validity of the Claim by raising three arguments: (1) the Abstract is void because it was filed after the bankruptcy was filed, (2) the Judgment is void because the state court lacked jurisdiction to enter the Judgment since the related family court orders were on appeal, (3) the state court committed various errors at trial before the Judgment was entered, and (4) the Claim should be offset by Debtor’s potential malpractice claims against Claimant. See, Obj., p. 2-7.
The Claim purports to be secured by the Abstract and the Lien. See,
Obj., Ex. A (the Claim).
Turning first to the Abstract, the Abstract was recorded at 3:42pm on May 1, 2019 in violation of the automatic stay because the petition was filed at 7:00am on May 1, 2019. Cf., Obj., Ex. A (the Claim) and the Petition.
Accordingly, since the Abstract was recorded after the petition was filed, and Claimant did not have relief from the automatic stay to record the Abstract, the recording violated the automatic stay and is void. See, In re Schwartz, 954 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1992)("Our decision today clarifies this area of the law by making clear that violations of the automatic stay are void, not voidable.").
The Lien arises from a family law attorney’s real property lien ("FLARPL") as codified in Family Code § 2033. See, Obj., Ex. A (copy of the FLARPL attached to the Abstract). Per subsection (e) of Family Code §
10:30 AM
2033, "An attorney for whom a family law attorney’s real property lien is obtained shall comply with Rule 3-300 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.” Under Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”) 3-300, an attorney shall not acquire a security interest adverse to a client unless the transaction fair and reasonable and fully disclosed to the client in writing, the client was advised in writing that the client may seek the advice of an independent lawyer and given a reasonable opportunity to seek that advice, and the client consents in writing to the terms. While RPC 3-300 has since been replaced with Rule 1.8.1, effective November 1, 2018, RPC 3-300 was in effect at the time the FLARPL was October 3, 2018.
Debtor argues that the Lien is void because Claimant did not comply she was not advised in writing that she could seek the advice of independent counsel. See, Obj., p. 2, ¶4. This argument is persuasive because the FLARPL attached to the Claim does not include any of the RPC 3-300 required language and there is no other documentation attached to the Claim with the missing language. See, Obj., Ex. A. Accordingly, Debtor has rebutted the prima facie validity of the Claim as to the Claim’s secured status, and Claimant must not prove the validity of the Claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
In response, Claimant argues that Debtor’s argument is unsubstantiated and unfounded and that Debtor’s claims’ should have been presented to the state court during the trial. Opp’n, p. 2:5-12. This argument is unpersuasive because in the very next sentence, Claimant admits that the "at the Trial the existence or non-existence of the Family Law Real Property Lien was not before the Court." Id. Moreover, Claimant has not provided any evidence of a writing, signed by Debtor, that complies with the requirements of RPC 3-300. See, Obj., Ex. A and Opp’n. As such, the Lien is not enforceable against Debtor’s property. See In re Segovia, 2008 WL 8462967, at *10 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2008), aff'd, 346 F. App'x
156 (9th Cir. 2009)(citing Fletcher v. Davis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 61, 64).
Claimant did produce the Judgment, however, which further substantiates the claim amount of $70,263.40. See, Opp’n, Ex. A. Accordingly, Claimant has proven the validity of the Claim amount, but has not carried his burden to prove the validity of Lien, i.e., the secured status of
10:30 AM
the Claim. Accordingly, the Objection is sustained in part and the Claim allowed as general unsecured claim in the amount of $70,263.40.
The Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Debtor’s arguments regarding the trial court’s errors and alleged lack of jurisdiction as the Court lacks jurisdiction to act as an appellate court to review the Judgment and how the state court applied state law. Moreover, as to the Claim amount based on the Judgment, Debtor has failed to provide any evidence that the Judgment has been stayed pending any appeal of the Judgment or any related family law appeals. Thus, the Judgment, currently, is evidence of the Claim and the Claim is allowable as an unsecured claim.
Debtor requests that the Court offset the Claim with Debtor’s malpractice causes of action against Claimant and avoid the Lien. See, Obj., p. 2, ¶3 and p. 9, ¶10. With regards to potential offset claim, Debtor herself admits that any such causes of action are currently contingent because the related family law orders are currently on appeal, and if reversed, Debtor will not suffer "irremediable harm" which is an element of a malpractice action. See, Reply, p. 3:27-4:28. As such, to the extent Debtor is seeking a declaratory judgment against Claimant, an adversary proceeding is required against Claimant per Rule 7001(9). Similarly, an adversary proceeding is required to avoid the Lien per Rules 3007(b)[any relief of the kind specified under Rule 7001 shall not be included in a claim objection] and 7001(2)["a proceeding to determine the validity...of a lien"].
Finally, Debtor provides no authority for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Claimant. As such, this request is denied.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 54
- NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019 Overrule Objection. Basis for Tentative Ruling
Debtor’s first argument is that the Claim should be afforded prima facie validity because no supporting documentation was attached to the Claim. See, Obj., p. 5:14-6:11. This argument is unpersuasive because Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001. The Claim was filed with Official Form 410 and included a transcript of the hearing in which First Minute Order was entered. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Debtor attempts to rebut the prima facie validity of the Claim by raising three arguments: (1) the state court lacked jurisdiction to enter the First Minute Order because that order was based on an order that was entered July 10, 2018 and was on appeal at the time the First Minute Order was entered, (2) the state court erred in when it sanctioned Debtor under CCP §§ 128.5 and 128.7, (3) the state court lacked jurisdiction to enter the Second Minute Order because the First Minute Order was on appeal at the time the Second Minute Order was entered, and (4) the Second Minute Order is void
10:30 AM
because it was entered in violation of the automatic stay. See, Obj., p. 1-9. These arguments should be overruled because the Second Minute Order is not void because the automatic stay was not applicable to the state court’s sanctions, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide Debtor’s appeal of the First Minute Order.
As a preliminary matter, the First Minute Order was entered on November 9, 2018. Since the petition date was May 1, 2019, the automatic stay is not implicated by the First Minute Order.
The Second Minute Order was entered postpetition on June 10, 2019. The hearing on Mr. Richards’ motion for an order granting relief from the automatic stay in regard to the divorce action was heard on June 13, 2019 and the order granting the motion was entered on June 26, 2019 the ("RFS Order")[dkt. #64]. Because the Second Minute Order was entered before the RFS Order was entered, the Second Minute Order is void unless the automatic stay was not applicable.
Under § 362(b)(4), the automatic stay is not applicable to the "the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit.. to enforce suchgovernmental unit’s or organization’s police and regulatory power,including the enforcement of a judgment other than a money judgment, obtained in an action or proceeding by thegovernmental unit to enforce suchgovernmental unit’s or organization’s police or regulatory power[.]"
Here, the automatic stay was not applicable to the Second Minute Order because:
Civil contempt proceedings are exempted from the automatic stay under the government regulatory stay exception where such proceedings are intended to effectuate the court's public policy in deterring litigation misconduct. This is so even though the sanctions are monetary and payable to a private party. [In re Dingley (9th Cir. 2017) 852 F3d 1143, 1144 (creditor's pursuit of civil contempt sanctions against debtor to effectuate state court's policy in deterring litigants from violating court orders
10:30 AM
imposing sanctions for litigation misconduct not subject to stay); In re Berg (9th Cir. BAP 1996) 198 BR 557, 561-563 (court's sua sponte imposition of sanctions on debtor for prosecuting frivolous appeal not subject to stay)]
Exceptions to Automatic Stay, Cal. Prac. Guide Bankruptcy Ch. 8(I)-C.
The First Minute Order was entered with regards to the state court’s OSC re sanctions for Debtor’s violation of the state court’s prior order and Debtor’s "impugning the integrity of this Court." See, Obj., Ex. A, p.
21:22-22:9 and p. 23:1-5 (page nos. here refer to the transcript page nos.). The state court made clear that it was issuing sanctions against Debtor for litigation misconduct, including frivolous filings and appeals. See, Obj., Ex. A,
p. 18-23 (page nos. refer to transcript page nos.). The Second Minute Order therefore relates to the Court’s civil contempt sanctions because the Second Minute Order merely "corrected" the First Minute Order. See, Obj., Ex. D. Accordingly, the automatic stay was not applicable to the Second Minute Order under § 362(b)(4) and the Second Minute Order is therefore not void.
court.
Debtor(s):
This Court lacks jurisdiction to review or modify any order of the state
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 57
- NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Overrule Objection due to continuing service issue which has not been corrected. The Objection was not served to Claimant pursuant to FRBP 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) which requires additional service per FRBP 7004(h).
Claimant was also served with notice of today's hearing date.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-15-19
Docket 70
- NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Service Issues:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 3007 governs the manner of service of an objection to claim. Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that if an objection is to the claim of an "insured depository institution" service of the objection and notice must be a) to the person designated on the claimant's proof of claim by first class mail, AND b) in the manner provided by Rule 7004(h).
FRBP 7004(h) requires that service to an insured depository institution must be made by certified mail addressed to an officer of the institution unless the institution has appeared by its attorney, in which case the attorney shall be served by first class mail.
Bankruptcy Code Section 101(35)(B) defines "insured depository institution" as including "an insured credit union."
10:30 AM
Because SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union ("SchoolsFirst" or "Claimant") is an insured credit union, Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) applies.
There is no record of an attorney appearing on behalf of SchoolsFirst in this case and, therefore, service by certified mail to the attention of an officer was required. Such service was not made.
Merits of the Objection:
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
In this case, Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001.
The Claim was filed on Official Form 410 and included supporting documentation, such as evidence of the outstanding debt. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of
10:30 AM
the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039.
Community Debt
Debtor argues that the debt owed to SchoolsFirst is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2).
Allocation of Community Debt
Finally, Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing SchoolsFirst's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection on the basis of assigned liability to Mr. Richards.
Arrears of $912.24 Referenced in the Proof of Claim
On this issue, Debtor appears to have satisfied her burden of showing that she is likely current with respect to the payments made to SchoolsFirst. However, the court cannot sustain her objection at this time on this issue because of the service problem. See Service discussion above.
10:30 AM
Based upon all of the foregoing, Debtor has not satisfied her burden of
presenting affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the subject proof of claim.
September 19, 2019
Overrule Objection due to continuing service issue which has not been corrected. The Objection was not served to Claimant pursuant to FRBP 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) which requires additional service per FRBP 7004(h).
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-15-19
Docket 74
- NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Service Issues:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 3007 governs the manner of service of an objection to claim. Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that if an objection is to the claim of an "insured depository institution" service of the objection and notice must be a) to the person designated on the claimant's proof of claim by first class mail, AND b) in the manner provided by Rule 7004(h).
FRBP 7004(h) requires that service to an insured depository institution must be made by certified mail addressed to an officer of the institution unless the institution has appeared by its attorney, in which case the attorney shall be served by first class mail.
Bankruptcy Code Section 101(35)(B) defines "insured depository institution" as including "an insured credit union."
10:30 AM
Because SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union ("SchoolsFirst" or "Claimant") is an insured credit union, Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) applies.
There is no record of an attorney appearing on behalf of SchoolsFirst in this case and, therefore, service by certified mail to the attention of an officer was required. Such service was not made.
Merits of the Objection:
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
In this case, Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001.
The Claim was filed on Official Form 410 and included supporting documentation, such as evidence of the outstanding debt. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of
10:30 AM
the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039.
Adequacy of the Proof of Claim
Debtor argues in conclusory manner without any legal support or authority that Claimant has not provided "adequate proof" of its claims and that "statements on the account from 2013 to present" is required. The court is unaware of any such requirement.
Rule 3001(a) requires that the proof of claim must "confirm substantially to the appropriate Official Form." In this case, the proof of claim is filed on Official Form 410.
Rule 3001(c)(3) provides that when a claim is based on an open-end or revolving consumer credit agreement, certain information is required such as, the name of the entity to whom the debt is owed, the date of the last transaction, the date of the last payment on the account and the date on which the account was charged off.
The statement attached to the proof of claim indicates that it is a revolving credit card debt and, therefore, Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) applies. The statement appears to include all of the required information. Rule 3001(c)(3)
(A) does not require that all monthly statements be attached.
Community Debt
Debtor also argues that the debt owed to SchoolsFirst is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." In this case, the credit obligation is in the name of both Debtor and her ex-spouse and is a community debt, as she admits. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for
10:30 AM
repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2). Allocation of Community Debt
Finally, Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing SchoolsFirst's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection.
Based upon all of the foregoing, Debtor has not satisfied her burden of presenting affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the subject proof of claim.
September 19, 2019
Overrule Objection for the same reasons set forth above in Section B of the Tentative Ruling for August 15, 2019
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-15-19
Docket 81
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation to Withdraw Claim Based on Stipulation Signed 8/27/2019 - td (8/28/2019)
August 15, 2019
Take matter off-calendar as moot. Parties have stipulated to Claimant withdrawing Claim #10 and Debtor withdrawing this objection to claim. A proposed order approving the stipulation must be filed within 7 days of today's hearing.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-15-19
Docket 92
- NONE LISTED -
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service issues: The Amended Objection to Claim was not timely filed for this hearing date. FRBP Rule 3007(a)(1) requires that objections to claim be filed at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing -- this includes amended objections to claim. Here, the Amended Objection to Claim was filed July 30, 2019, only sixteen days prior to today's hearing and includes new argument and evidence that were not included in the original objection to claim filed July 9, 2019.
Merits: Even if the Amended Objection to Claim was timely, Debtor's arguments regarding disallowance of the claim are not persuasive and not supported by legal support or authority.
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035,
10:30 AM
1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir.
1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
Debtor's Arguments:
Inadequate Proof of Debt: Debtor argues that Claimant filed a contract between American Info Source ("American") and Verizon but did not provide a contract between Debtor and American or Verizon.
First, the contract between American and Verizon simply memorializes a servicing agreement between the two entities that authorizes American to file a bankruptcy proof of claim on behalf of Verizon. The contract states in part "This Short Form Services Agreement will allow American Infosource to file, amend or withdraw bankruptcy related proof of claim (POC) filings on behalf of of Verizon." The servicing agreement has no bearing on Debtor's or the bankruptcy estate's liability for the debt.
Second, the proof of claim, filed on Official Form 410, also includes a Statement of Accounts with Debtor's name, address, account number, and summary of charges with the amount due, last transaction date, charge-off date, etc.. This is sufficient to satisfy Rule 3001(a) and is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
Third, Debtor asserts that there ia a discrepancy between the
10:30 AM
amount on the March 25, 2017 invoice, $225.15, and the amount on the proof of claim, $220.85. However, as the Statement of Accounts indicates an amount due of $200.85, which matches the amount on the proof of claim, this argument is not persuasive as a basis for disallowing the claim.
Community Debt
Debtor contends that the debt owed to Verizon is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." In this case, the credit obligation is in the name of both Debtor and her ex-spouse and is a community debt, as she admits. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2).
Allocation of Community Debt
Finally, Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing SchoolsFirst's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection. As for Debtor's argument that the claim needs to be "offset" against her ex- spouse, no legal authority is stated for offsetting a community claim from one spouse to another absent a family court order. The Februrary 22, 2016 Order attached to the Objection does not assign liability of this particular debt solely to Mr. Richards.
Service of Proof of Claim: There is no rule or statute requiring a creditor to
10:30 AM
serve its proof of claim on a debtor. FRBP 3002 only requires that the proof of claim be filed with the court.
In sum, because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. Debtor has not met that burden of proof.
September 19, 2019
Overrule Objection for the same reasons set forth above in Section B of the Tentative Ruling for August 15, 2019
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Claim No. 1 On Deck Capital, Inc. Claim No. 26 LVNV Funding, LLC Claim No. 30 LendingClub Corporation
Docket 50
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Claim No. 14 American Express National Bank Claim No. 15 American Express National Bank
Docket 56
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
FR: 8-8-19
Docket 740
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 11/21/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order
Entered 9/17/2019 (XX) - liz (9/17/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01095 Steward Financial LLC v. Bral
FR: 8-8-19
Docket 78
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 11/21/2019 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order
Entered 9/17/2019 (XX) - liz (9/17/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Steward Financial LLC Represented By
2:00 PM
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01095 Steward Financial LLC v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18; 3-21-19; 8-15-19
Docket 35
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. Deadline for Defendant to file responsive pleading to the FAC: June 20, 2019. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.; an updated status report is not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve
2:00 PM
notice of the continued date/time.
September 17, 2019
Continue status conference to November 21, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.; an updated status report is not required.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued date/time.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Steward Financial LLC Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
11:00 AM
FR: 8-22-19; 9-19-19
Docket 51
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Luis G. Rivas Sanchez Represented By Steven B Lever
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Maria Elidia Cerda Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lisa Nguyen Represented By
Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thana Eddik Represented By
Gregory M Shanfeld
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 8/14/2019 - td (9/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Nicky Alexis Michaels Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Elisabeth Mary Ziesmer Represented By Javier H Castillo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 8/5/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (8/8/2019). Subsequently, Order Approving Stipulation Dismissing Case Under §707(b) Entered 8/20/2019 - td (8/20/2019)
Debtor(s):
Abigail Vizcaino Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joel Cabrera Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Guadalupe Haydee Sauza Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Donna Lee Lawler Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sandie A. Campanilla Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Diana Gomez Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Grant Goffinet Represented By Gary Polston
Joint Debtor(s):
Jennifer Goffinet Represented By Gary Polston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael E. Silbermann Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 3
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Tonnie Lynett White Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 7/30/2019 - td (9/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Dushan Michael Gunasekera Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Connie R Lavayen Represented By Alisa Admiral
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Enterede 7/29/2019 - td (7/30/2019)
Debtor(s):
Sergio Piana Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lisa Anna Gregorius Represented By Sheila M Pistone
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jose Gerardo Martinez Represented By David R Chase
Joint Debtor(s):
Irma Martinez Represented By David R Chase
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Francis Shook Represented By Scott Dicus
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 7/15/2019 - td (7/15/2019)
Debtor(s):
Josephine Juanita Garcia Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 7/22/2019 - td (7/22/2019)
Debtor(s):
Gary Edward Smith Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 8/5/2019 - td (9/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Tina Truong Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Scott T. Vu Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Thu M. Nguyen Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sandra Fuamatu Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Howard Zebulun Eaves Represented By Raymond J Seo
Joint Debtor(s):
Erwena Dayao Eaves Represented By Raymond J Seo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 7/15/2019 - td (7/15/2019)
Debtor(s):
Maria Elidia Cerda Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jamie Christa Carroll Represented By Seema N Sood
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Juan Carlos Portillo Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Natalie L Wade Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stephen Tague La Fountain Represented By Kevin Tang
Joint Debtor(s):
Rosemary Ann La Fountain Represented By Kevin Tang
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Juan Carlos Salinas Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Charles A Thomas Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Joint Debtor(s):
Theresa A. Thomas Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Darlene Futrel Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 26
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Shauna Barnhardt Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 24
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Veronica Romano Represented By Thinh V Doan
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
FR: 3-27-18; 7-17-18; 9-25-18; 11-27-18; 1-22-19; 3-26-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19;
8-27-19
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 26
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kevin S. Yoneda Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 7-30-19; 8-27-19
Docket 23
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kevin S. Yoneda Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William Raymond Harvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Joint Debtor(s):
Akram Naieharvey Represented By Farbood Majd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 8-27-19
Docket 41
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 8/29/2019 - td (8/30/2019)
Debtor(s):
Nicole H. Hazlett Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 5-21-19; 6-25-19; 8-27-19
Docket 30
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 3-26-19; 4-23-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19; 8-27-19
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joy Anne Victoria Lacebal Fumera Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19; 8-27-19
Docket 113
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Giuseppe Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Joint Debtor(s):
Heldia F. De Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 8-27-19
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Troy Bernard Jemerson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 71
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mian K. Taufique Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 45
OFF CALENDAR Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 8/22/2019 - td (8/22/2019)
Debtor(s):
Michael Mitchell Wise Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 73
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 9/6/2019 - td (9/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Hang Nga Thi Le Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 68
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Felicia Ann Hardimon Represented By Luis G Torres Todd L Turoci
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 40
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion, filed 9/5/2019 - td (9/6/2019)
Debtor(s):
Romeo Torrecampo Tariman Represented By
Jaime G Monteclaro
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 131
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Vanessa Frazier Elrousan Represented By Eliza Ghanooni
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 7-30-19; 8-27-19
Docket 131
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Miguel Garcia Perez Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 385
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 389
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 95
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 340
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 344
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 327
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 342
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 346
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 329
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 311
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 319
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 298
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 308
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 312
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 68
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 320
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 328
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Fruadulent Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Bickford Ranch, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 77
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 308
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 312
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
(5) to Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers [Debtor: SunCal Emerald Meadows, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 69
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 594
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 601
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Marblehead, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 105
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 498
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 502
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Heartland, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 99
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 486
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 490
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 98
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 486
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 490
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 98
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 490
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
2:00 PM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19
Docket 494
CONTINUED: Oral Ruling Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: Delta Coves Venture LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19
Docket 100
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/17/2019 at 10:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow
2:00 PM
Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
9:00 AM
FR: 7-16-19; 8-15-19
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
July 16, 2019
Continue hearing to August 15, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow respondent to obtain an authenticated valuation that includes interior/exterior property inspection.
Respondent's supplemental pleading must be filed by August 1, 2019; any reply by Debtor must be filed by August 8, 2019. Debtor shall allow access to the property upon 1 business day's notice. (XX)
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Set matter for evidentiary hearing regarding the value of the property as of the date of the filing. Both appraisers must be present for cross examination.
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as incorporated by the FRBP), and the Federal Rules of Evidence apply.
Available evidentiary hearing dates: September 23, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. or September 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
9:00 AM
Debtor's request in his Reply brief is denied -- the court may not weigh the declaration testimony of one declarant over another.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
September 27, 2019
Order of Evidentiary Hearing:
Opening Statements of Debtor -- 10 mins or less Opening Statements of Creditor: 10 mins or less Debtor's Request for Admission of Evidence Cross Examination of Debtor's Appraiser/ Redirect Creditor's Request for Admission of Evidence
Cross Examination of Creditor's Appraiser/Redirect Closing Statement of Debtor/Creditor/Debtor
Debtor(s):
Charles William Hutchison Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:00 AM
2:00 PM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
September 27, 2019
Deny Motion. Set Order to Show Cause why this involuntary petition should not be dismissed and set hearing regarding the same for October 3, 2019 at 10:00
a.m. Petitioning creditors to file a response to the OSC by 3:00 p.m. on Tues., October 1, 2019.
Court's Comments re the Emergency Motion:
It appears that the claims of the petitioning creditors are based on the state court judgment that has now been reversed, i.e., invalidated, on a final basis.
It appears that petitioning creditors knew that the judgment had been reversed at the time of the filing of the petition. Notwithstanding that circumstance, Linda Hong is listed on the petition as having a "Civil Judgment for Conversion" in the amount of $2,750,996.
The reversal of the judgment also eliminated Ms. Hong's purported equitable ownership interest in Debtor. That being the case, it would appear that the remaining principals are entitled to control of Debtor and its assets. Why should a chapter 7 trustee be appointed under such circumstances?
The involuntary petition was filed more than three weeks ago but has not yet
2:00 PM
been properly served on Debtor. This does not bode well for an "emergency" circumstance.
It appears petitioning creditor Daniel E. Park Law Corporation might actually owe Debtor substantially more than the $115,795.55 it is claiming.
At a minimum, it is clear that the claims of the petitioning creditors, if they continue to exist at all, are subject to a bona fide dispute in light of the reversal of the judgment. As such, neither qualifies to be a petitioning creditor as a matter of law under 11 U.S.C. 303(b).
The court questions the good faith of a creditor who would file an involuntary petition on the basis of a reversed civil judgment.
It appears the involuntary petition was filed to delay the pending unlawful detainer action. Query as to what legal standing either petitioning creditor has with respect to such proceeding?
Debtor(s):
Beom & Eun Investment LLC Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01172 Pacific Western Bank v. Gaglio et al
FR: 12-6-18; 12-20-18; 6-20-19; 8-1-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED TO APRIL 9, 2020 AT 9:30 A.M.; UPDATED STATUS REPORT RE STATUS OF STATE COURT MATTER MUST BE FILED NO
LATER THAN APRIL 2, 2020 -- eas (at hearing held on 9/5/19)
December 20, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: May 3, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: June 20, 2019 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: June 6, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By
9:30 AM
Timothy S Huyck
Defendant(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Pro Se
Jack G. Gaglio Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck
Plaintiff(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01136 Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Golden
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/7/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Enered 8/8/2019 (XX) - td (8/8/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Tung Phuong Nguyen-Phuc Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Jeffrey Golden Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Represented By
Lane K Bogard
Lisa Darling-Alderton
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Jerome Ringler Neil Macy Howard David Wood
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01039 Chokshi v. Malhotra et al
FR: 5-30-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Complaint filed 9/5/2019; Order Dismissing Adversary Complaint Entered 9/11/2019 - td (9/11/2019)
May 30, 2019 | |
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 7/30/19 |
Deadline to Attend Mediation: | 8/30/19 |
Pretrial Conference Date: | 10/3/19 at 9:30 a.m. |
(XX) | |
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: | 9/19/19 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Raj Malhotra Represented By
Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Raj Malhotra Pro Se
Nayana Malhotra Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Nayana Malhotra Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Plaintiff(s):
Manisha Chokshi Represented By Onyinye N Anyama Vithlani Dilip
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01108 Pipitone v. Choice Motor Credit, LLC
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue Status Conference to October 3, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve Defendant with notice of the continued status conference date/time.
October 3, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to November 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 7, 2019.
The status conference is being continued in light of Plaintiff's representations in the status report that some issues have been resolved and that Defendant has hired new counsel to set aside default.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve Defendant with notice of the continued status conference date/time.
Debtor(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Defendant(s):
Choice Motor Credit, LLC Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC VS.
DEBTOR FR: 8-22-19
Docket 42
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 US..C. §362 (Settled by Stipulation) / APO Entered 10/2/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
October 3, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of this matter. If more time is needed, the hearing may be continued a final time to November 7, 2019 or November 14 at 10:00 a.m. by requesting a continuance during the calendar roll call prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Dominga Cuenca Morales Represented By Scott Dicus
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Ditech Financial LLC Represented By Julian T Cotton Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. VS.
DEBTORS FR: 8-22-19
Docket 56
OFF CALENDAR: Orde Granting Motion For Relief From The Automatic Stay Under Entered 9/16/19 - liz (9/16/19)
August 22, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Sergio Rubio Sanchez Represented By Raymond Perez
10:00 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Silvia Sanchez Represented By Raymond Perez
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Represented By
Kelsey X Luu
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael E Robles Represented By Stirling J Hopson
Joint Debtor(s):
Eleanor R Robles Represented By Stirling J Hopson
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
American First Credit Union, its Represented By
Nichole Glowin
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU INC. VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 42
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
The court is inclined to grant this Motion and to abstain under 28 U.S.C. 1452(b).
Section 1452(b) allows the court to remand a removed action on "any equitable ground." The court finds that equitable grounds for remand exist in this matter based upon the following:
The subject action involves exclusively state law issues and no federal question or bankruptcy law issues;
There are multiple non-debtor parties involved in the action;
There is no jurisdictional basis other than 28 USC 1334;
The matter does not arise under a bankruptcy case or under bankruptcy law.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Movant(s):
Legal Service Bureau Inc. dba Represented By Timothy C Aires
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 18
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion For Relief From The Automatic Stay Entered 9/16/19 - liz (9/16/19)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sandra Fuamatu Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to file declaration in support of Motion.
Pages 6-10 of the Motion are missing.
Note: If Movant accepts the tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Claude Marian Dragomir Represented By Alaa A Ibrahim
Movant(s):
Kinecta Federal Credit Union Represented By Mark S Blackman
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(RE: 2011 Nissan Frontier)
PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gibran Galindo Represented By Omar Zambrano
Movant(s):
Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(RE: 2015 Ford Explorer)
PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gibran Galindo Represented By Omar Zambrano
Movant(s):
Partners Federal Credit Union Represented By Yuri Voronin
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Christina Mixti Graves Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Joint Debtor(s):
Jeremy Ray Graves Represented By Kevin J Kunde
Movant(s):
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jennifer H Wang
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
L.A. PACIFIC PLAZA, LLC VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 5
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver. Overrule objection as unpersuasive.
Debtor(s):
Beom & Eun Investment LLC Pro Se
Movant(s):
L.A. Pacific Plaza LLC Represented By Byron Z Moldo Gary A Starre
10:00 AM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Eric Anthony Perez Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Eric Anthony Perez Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Erica Duarte Bruce Represented By Andrew Moher
Movant(s):
Erica Duarte Bruce Represented By Andrew Moher
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 58
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion to re-open and re-appoint chapter 7 trustee, effective upon the entry of an order granting the motion.
Overrule Debtor's objections. The is Debtor's failure to report her equitable interest in the subject 8-unit property. She had a responsibility to review her own schedules and bankruptcy commencement documents for accuracy before signing the same. Her attempt to deflect blame on the inaccuracy of the schedules is irrelevant to the issue of whether this case should be re- opened.
Debtor(s):
Susan Doan Represented By
Gregory J Doan
Trustee(s):
John M Wolfe (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 22
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kimberly Dian Perez Represented By Samuel V Kelsall
Joint Debtor(s):
Paul Anthony Perez Represented By Samuel V Kelsall
Trustee(s):
John M Wolfe (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 404
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
[WEILAND GOLDEN GOODRICH LLP, ATTORNEY FOR TRUSTEE]
Docket 403
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
[GROBSTEIN TEEPLE, LLP, ACCOUNTANTS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 408
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
FR: 9-5-19
Docket 53
September 5, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Movant to correct service issues: Failure to comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(c) (notice of deadline to file opposition); Failure to serve Debtor per FRBP 7004(b)(3) as required by FRBP 9014 for contested matters (motion was not served to the attention of an officer, director or agent for service of process as to Debtor); Chapter 7 trustee was not properly served. (XX)
Tentative ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Deny motion as to the request to withdraw as state court counsel and grant motion as to the alternative request for relief from the automatic stay to move withdrawal in the state court case.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Movant shall give notice of the continued hearing date/time.
October 3, 2019 (UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING)
10:30 AM
Deny motion as to the request to withdraw as state court counsel and grant motion as to the alternative request for relief from the automatic stay to move for withdrawal in the state court case.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett Christine D Barker
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
10:30 AM
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
The Court is inclined to grant the Motion and refer this matter to the Court's Disciplinary Panel, notwithstanding Mr. Darvish's late-filed response.
Basis for Tentative Ruling (due to the tardiness Mr. Darvish's response, the Court has not had an opportunity to conduct a thorough review:
Despite receiving notice of the time to file an opposition to the Motion, Mr. Darvish did not file such opposition until October 1, 2019, just two days prior to the hearing. Even when his ability to continue practicing before this court was on the line, Mr. Darvish could not follow the simple rule of timely filing an opposition.
The late filing of the opposition deprived the U.S. Trustee of the opportunity to timely file a reply to the opposition and imposed a substantial inconvenience on the court, who completed review of this matter on September 30, 2019.
Though Mr. Darvish admits that he entered into a stipulation with the U.S. Trustee (approved by order of the court), he also admits that he has not complied with all the terms he agreed to nearly a year ago.
10:30 AM
Mr. Darvish indicates in his response that he has completed more than 25 hours of CLE. Virtually none of the programs attached as Exhibit A to the response relate to ethics that would be relevant to a bankruptcy practitioner (6 hours required by the Stipulation) and none relate to law office managment (6 hours required by the Stipulation). The CLE topics attached to the response include "Ambush Marketing and the Olympic Games," "Drafting a Franchise Document . . .", "Follow the Money: Legal Pitfalls of Investing in Cannabas," "Raising Capital in the Internet Age . . . Crowdfunding," "How to Structure Employment Agreements . . . to Avoid Section 409A Tax Traps," "Ethical Issues Facing In-House Counsel," "Cryptocurrency," "Hot Topics in Copyright Law." All 25 hours were completed on line between 1/25/19 - 1/31/19
No adequate explanation is provided as to why Mr. Darvish did not complete 6 hours of Ethics and 6 hours of law office management as required by the Stipulation.
Mr. Darvish does not state in his response why he failed to file a declaration by November 30, 2018 in accordance with the Stipulation indicating that he had read the tentative ruling issued by Judge Neil Bason on March 30, 2017 in the matter of In re Israel Garcia. He does not state that he read it at all.
Mr. Darvish states that he did not comply with the requirement of the Stipulation that he read the handout materials from the OCBF seminar "How to Successfully Prosecute a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy . . ." presented on November 16, 2017 because he "could not locate them," but does not state what efforts he made to obtain the same.
Mr. Darvish provides no explanation as to why he did not seek and obtain an attorney mentor as required by the Stipulation.
In a nutshell, Mr. Darvish has ignored most of the requirements of the court- approved Stipulation and wants the U.S. Trustee and the Court to accept his word that his practice is better now.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Thavy Tanksley Represented By Alon Darvish
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 226
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow debtor submit a supplemental pleading in compliance with LBR 3007-1(c)(1) and (2) [objection not supported by declaration of objecting party]. (XX)
Tentative Ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Sustain objection.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
October 3, 2019
Sustain Objection.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 232
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow debtor submit a supplemental pleading in compliance with LBR 3007-1(c)(1) and (2) [objection not supported by declaration of objecting party]. (XX)
Tentative Ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Sustain objection.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
October 3, 2019
Sustain Objection.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 230
- NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Continue hearing to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow debtor submit a supplemental pleading in compliance with LBR 3007-1(c)(1) and (2) [objection not supported by declaration of objecting party]. (XX)
Tentative Ruling for 10/3/19 hearing (if unopposed): Sustain objection.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
October 3, 2019
Sustain Objection.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:30 AM
Docket 158
- NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mary Elizabeth Schaffer Represented By Andrew S Bisom
10:30 AM
Docket 152
- NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mary Elizabeth Schaffer Represented By Andrew S Bisom
10:30 AM
Docket 143
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Issues to be Addressed at the Hearing:
Service: The proof of service [docket #144] shows service of the plan and disclosure statement but not the ballot. If creditors were served with the ballot, amended proof of service must be filed.
Treatment of Secured Creditors
a.) 1129(a)(7): Creditors must receive at least as much in chapter 11 as they would receive in a chapter 7. Here, in a chapter 7, secured creditors would receive their collateral. Under the plan, secured creditors are being paid out over time. In order to receive as much as they would receive in chapter 7 (the immediate surrender of collateral), they need to receive the present value of such collateral (i.e., interest). The plan does not provide for interest to any of the secured classes and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of 1129(a)(7).
b.) 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) and (II): As none of the secured classes submitted ballots, the cram down provisions of 1129(b) apply. As to secured claimants, 1129(b)(2) provides that "fair and equitable means (I) claimant retain their liens and (II) claimants will receive cash payments totaling "the allowed amount of [their] claim, of a value, as of the effective date of the
10:30 AM
plan . . . ." In other words, secured creditors must receive cash payments equal to the present value of their collateral. Present value is provided through the payment of interest.
The plan does not specifically provide for the retention of liens.
Further, the plan provides that secured creeditors will receive no interest over the term of the plan. Accordingly, the plan does not satisfy the "fair and equitable" requirements of 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) and (II).
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 10-25-18; 3-7-19; 3-19-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 25, 2018 [UPDATED SINCE ORIGINAL POSTING]
Deadline to file plan/disclosure stmt: Jan. 17, 2019
Continued status conference: Feb. 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated status report due: Jan. 24, 2019 (this requirement is waived if Debtor
timely files plan/disclosure stmt)
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtor to confirm substantial compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 19, 2019
No tentative ruling -- outcome will depend upon disposition of #22 on today's calendar (approval of disclosure statement).
10:30 AM
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to July 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of Debtor's disclosure statement. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required.
July 18, 2019
Continue status conference to October 3, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
October 3, 2019
No tentative ruling -- disposition will depend upon outcome of plan confirmation hearing.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 77
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion.
Query: Is the motion mooted by the fact that the extension requested was through October 1, 2019 and no 727 action was filed by October 1?
Debtor(s):
Sean Pate Represented By
Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Sustain Objection.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Debra V Green Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
U.S.C. Section 1112(b)
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Gateway Business Complex LLC Represented By
Michael H Raichelson
10:30 AM
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Dismiss involuntary petition. Basis for Tentative Ruling
On September 4, 2019 petitioning creditors, Daniel E. Park Law Corporation ("Park Law") and Linda Hong ("Hong") filed the within involuntary petition. Prior to the filing of the petition, Park Law represented Hong in various legal matters.
In paragraph 13 of the petition, it is stated that Park Law is owed
$155,795.55 by Debtor for "Unpaid Attorneys' Fees and Costs," and that Hong is owed 2,750,966.00 based on a "Civil Judgment for Conversion." ("Judgment")
The petition does not disclose that the Judgment was reversed by the California Court of Appeal on June 5, 2019, approximately two months prior to the filing of the petition. The court considers the representation that Hong's claim was based on state court judgment to be deliberately misleading as both Park Law and Hong were aware that the judgment had been reversed as of September 5, 2019, the petition date.
Prior to the reversal of the Judgment, Hong had sought and obtained a
10:30 AM
court-appointed receiver, Kenneth Krasne ("Receiver") to seize control of Debtor's spa business. The Receiver was appointed on or about March 30, 2017. The appointment of the Receiver was based entirely upon the relief and rights afforded Hong in the Judgment.
From the time of his appointment through June 5, 2019, the Receiver distributed to Hong in excess of $600,000 pursuant to the Judgment. However, once the Judgment was reversed on June 4, 2019, the Receiver stopped making distributions and sought instructions and/or termination of the receivership in state court. That matter remains pending in state court.
Park Law contends that the Receiver's refusal to distribute funds to it in August 2019 constitutes a failure of Debtor to pay its debts as they become due, notwithstanding the fact that the legal basis for the receivership, the Judgment, no longer existed. It is worth noting that Park Law, through its counsel Christopher Cianci, represented to this court at a hearing held on September 27, 2019 (re petitioning creditors' emergency motion for the appointment of an interim trustee), that Park Law had not submitted regular invoices to the the Receiver over the course of the representation and that the first demand for payment of fees was made in August 2019, after the reversal of the Judgment.
At the time the petition was filed, Debtor's landlord, an unlawful detainer action was pending in state court between Debtor and its landlord, L.A. Pacific Plaza, LLC ("Landlord"). In fact, a hearing on the Landlord's summary judgment motion was scheduled to be heard on September 6, 2019, two days prior to the filing of the petition. At the time of the filing of the petition, lease arrearages owed to the Landlord totaled approximately $650,000. See Declaration of Fred Szkolnik attached to the Motion for Relief from Stay Motion ("RFS Motion") filed by the Landlord.
According to Park Law, it was hired by the Receiver to represent the Debtor on various legal matters from June 2017 through June 2019 and that its fees for such representation totaled $115,795.55. Also according to Park Law, it made demand on the Receiver in August 2019 for payment of such fees but was advised by the Receiver that he would not distribute any funds without a court order. Notably, by this time the Judgment had been reversed
10:30 AM
and the status of the Receiver was uncertain.
On September 27, 2019 at the hearing on the Emergency Motion, counsel for the Landlord represented that it opposed the bankruptcy proceeding and wished to proceed with its unlawful detainer action in state court. Based upon the pleadings filed in connection with the Emergency Motion as well as Park Law's opposition to the RFS Motion, it is apparent that this involuntary petition was filed for three reasons: 1) to halt or delay the unlawful detainer action and
2) to prevent the Receiver from turning over Debtor's assets and business operations to it legal owners (due to the reversal of the Judgment, Hong holds no legal or equitable interest in Debtor); and 3) to prevent the legal owners of Debtor from surrendering the leased premises to the Landlord. None of these reasons constitute grounds for sustaining an involuntary petition. While a motion to dismiss an involuntary petition is usually filed by the putative debtor, the court need not wait for such a motion to be filed but can act on its own. In re Mi La Sul, 380 B.R. 546, 555 (Bankr.C.D. Cal 2007).
Park Law appears to have promulgated this involuntary petition for the purpose of gaining an advantage over another creditor -- Landlord -- and over the principals of Debtor. Where a petitioning creditor is attempting to obtain disproportionate advantage over another creditor or creditors by means of filing involuntary bankruptcy petition, dismissal of the involuntary petition is warranted as having been filed in bad faith. Id.
There is no bankruptcy purpose to be served by this involuntary petition. The disposition of the receivership can best be adjudicated in state court
Based upon the totality of all the circumstances noted above, this involuntary petition must be dismissed as having been filed in bad faith.
Debtor(s):
Beom & Eun Investment LLC Represented By William J Wall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17; 8-31-17;
4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 6-20-19; 9-19-19
Docket 73
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Continue status conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date. Court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not be Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction in light of the assignment of this adversary to Debtors pursuant to global settlement between Trustee and Debtors approved by the Court at hearing on January 31, 2019. The OSC hearing will also be held on April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Once the adversary proceeding is dismissed, Debtors will be free to initiate new litigation against the defendant in any nonbankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
October 3, 2019
The court is withholding its substantive ruling on the Motion until the time of the hearing to allow the parties to first address at the following preliminary issue:
2:00 PM
In light of the assignment of the claims from the chapter 7 trustee to Plaintiffs and the fact the the administration of the bankruptcy estate is only impacted in the event of a recovery by Plaintiffs, why should this court not abstain on the following grounds under 28 USC 1334(c)(1):
Only state law claims are asserted;
No bankruptcy laws are implicated and none of the claims arise in the bankruptcy case and other than 28 U.S.C. 1334, there is no other federal jurisdiction;
There are multiple non-debtor parties
As indicated above, the impact on the administration of the estate is remote (i.e., recovery must be turned over to the estate)
Though this matter has been pending for approximately five years, it is still in the beginning stages , e.g., no discovery has been conducted.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
2:00 PM
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Movant(s):
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
2:00 PM
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 3-12-15; 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17;
8-31-17; 4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 6-20-19; 9-19-19
Docket 59
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
2:00 PM
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence
2:00 PM
Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
10:30 AM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
October 8, 2019
Service Issue:
Local Bankruptcy Rule 9075-1(a)(6) requires that an emergency motion must be filed by "email, fax or personal service" not later than the time the motion is filed with the court. The service declarations do not indicate that secured creditors were served by any method other than first class mail.
Court's Comments re the Substance of the Motion/Opposition:
Re the Budget (Exh. 1): what does the monthly $2000 expense for "postage and delivery" cover?
Re the Budget: Explanation of the monthly $5000 expense for legal and professional fees is required.
Re the Budget: Explanation for the monthly $1200 expense for repairs and maintenance is required. Repairs and maintenance of what?
Re the Budget: Will any of the cash collateral be used to pay salaries that became due prepetition?
10:30 AM
Other than cash collateral, what are Debtor's assets?
Re the Opposition of MacArthur Village Homeowners Assn (HOA): While the HOA is entitled to maintain its third priority secured position on account of the ORAP (the court is well aware of the Hilde case), it is not clear what more, if anything, the HOA is seeking as adequate protection. The court does not believe that any payment is warranted at this time.
Debtor(s):
Dove Real Estate & Association Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01038 Naylor v. Advanced Innovative Recovery Technologies, Inc.
FR: 5-30-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
May 30, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference to October 10, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 3. 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by the Court by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this status conference are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
October 10, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference one final time to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by December 5, 2019 if the adversary proceeding is still pending as of such date.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
William S. Stewart Pro Se
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Advanced Innovative Recovery Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Barbara E. Stewart Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Karen Sue Naylor Represented By Christopher Minier
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
10:00 AM
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR, NEW CENTURY EQUITY LOAN TRUST, 2005-1
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 52
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Omar Martinez Sanchez Represented By Bryn C Deb
Movant(s):
Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By
Diana Torres-Brito Anna Landa
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT LOANS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-QO5
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 42
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant motion with 4001(a)(3) waiver unless the parties have negotiated a resolution -- if more time is needed, a request for a continuance may be made during the calendar roll call at the beginning of the hearing. Available continued hearing dates: Nov. 7 or Nov, 14, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Movant(s):
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST Represented By
Dane W Exnowski Katie M Parker
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 41
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Peter Woo Sik Kim Represented By Andrew S Bisom
Joint Debtor(s):
Sharon Soyun Kim Represented By Andrew S Bisom
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Santander Consumer USA Inc. dba Represented By
Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Rika Kido
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Nicolas Gerard Arroyo Represented By Michael N Nicastro
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Arla Arroyo Represented By Michael N Nicastro
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
TD Auto Finance LLC Represented By Jennifer H Wang
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jose Gualberto Diaz Represented By
James Geoffrey Beirne
Movant(s):
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE Represented By
Vincent V Frounjian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to correct service issues: Debtor was not served at the mailing address indicated on the petition and the proof of service attached to the Motion is incomplete (no signature or date of service).
Tentative ruling for 11/7/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and annulment; deny relief request #5 (co-debtor stay doesn't apply in chapter 7 case), #s 7 and 9 (insufficient grounds for extraordinary prospective relief stated)
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required; Movant to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Kimberlee F. Velt Represented By Joseph A Weber
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Joe Cruz Represented By
John J Lewis
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 103
OFF CALENDAR: Chapter 7 Trustee's Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, filed 10/4/2019 - td (10/7/2019)
Debtor(s):
Christopher A Schaller Represented By Vincent Renda
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 41
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
David Sanchez Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF LARRY D. SIMONS, ATTORNEY FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE RICHARD A. MARSHACK]
Docket 39
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
David Sanchez Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Larry D Simons
10:30 AM
Docket 95
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Movant(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
and (2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case
FR: 9-6-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 3-21-19; 4-18-19; 6-6-19; 8-22-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation for Dismissal of Chapter 11 Case with 180 Day Bar filed 9/12/2019 - td (9/13/2019)
September 6, 2018
Debtor's counsel to address the following issues which are not addressed in the status report:
Cash Collateral: Debtor has rental income but there is no mention of seeking authorization to use cash collateral or a cash collateral stipulation.
State Court Litigation: More information regarding the nature and procedural posture of the state court action is required. What was going on in the litigation that caused this case to be filed? How will this litigation be dealt with in the bankruptcy case?
Plan/Disclosure Statement: This case appears to be relatively straightforward but the timing of filing a plan and disclosure statement is not discussed in the status report.
Tentative Schedule:
Claims Bar Date: Nov. 19, 2018 (notice by Sept. 17, 2018)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: Nov. 29, 2018
Con't Status Conf: Dec. 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
10:30 AM
Updated Status Report Due: Dec. 6, 2018 (waived if plan/DS timely filed)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 20, 2018
Impose sanctions in the amount against Debtor's for 1) failure to file a plan and disclosure statement and failure to timely file a status report in accordance with the court's September 6, 2018 order. No explanation is offered as why the plan and disclosure statement were not filed by November 29, 2018. No attempt was made to seek an extension of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement. Apparently, counsel views the dates set forth in such order as a mere suggestion which can otherwise be ignored.
The court will issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely file a plan and disclosure statement and to comply with orders of the court.
Note: Apppearance at this hearing is required.
January 31, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of related matter on today's calendar.
March 21, 2019
Continue chapter 11 status conference to April 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of disclosure statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the
10:30 AM
United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
April 18, 2019
No tentative ruling; outcome will depend upon the disposition of #24 on today's calendar.
June 6, 2019
No tentative ruling; outcome will depend upon the disposition of #16 on today's calendar.
August 22, 2019
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of plan confirmation hearing
October 10, 2019
Take status conference off calendar in light of approval of stipulation re dismissal of case.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Amir Keivan Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
Joint Debtor(s):
Minou M. Hedayat Represented By
J Scott Williams
10:30 AM
[THOMAS H. CASEY, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 42
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Cyrus P. Manalo Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Joint Debtor(s):
Marissa Sinlao Manalo Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 112
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing Entered 10/2/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01187 Legal Service Bureau Inc v. Miller et al
Docket 5
CONTINUED: HEARING CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 17, 2019 AT 10:30 A.M,
SAME DATE/TIME AS HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY AND MOTION FOR REMAND -- eas 10/3/19 (XX) - td (10/3/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe Ryan S Riddles
Defendant(s):
Leslie Anne Miller Pro Se
Robert L Miller Pro Se
Orange County Bail Bonds Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Movant(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Legal Service Bureau Inc Pro Se
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Jr. Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Jr. Represented By Michael Jones
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 417
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 372
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 374
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
2:00 PM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
Docket 530
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 518
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
Docket 518
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
Docket 522
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 2:00 p.m. on Court's Own Motion. White & Case LLP, Attorneys for SunCal Mgmt LLC will Provide Notice (XX) - td (9/25/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
2:00 PM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier Shane M Biornstad
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
9:30 AM
Docket 82
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Steve Kim Represented By
M. Jonathan Hayes
Joint Debtor(s):
Hye Sun Kim Represented By
M. Jonathan Hayes
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
(TA CASE)
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rena Mahammad Alyousef Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 63
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Guy S. Griffithe Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 64
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Guy S. Griffithe Represented By Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
(TA CASE)
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Franky R Rodriguez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bambry Barlahan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
(CB CASE)
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Victor M Ospina Martinez Represented By Marlin Branstetter
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
(CB CASE)
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Victor M Ospina Martinez Represented By Marlin Branstetter
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cynthia Lisvee Alvear Pineda Represented By Marlin Branstetter
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
(CB CASE)
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nelly Silcox Represented By
Barry E Borowitz
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
(TA CASE)
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dwain Miskulin Represented By Bill J Parks
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
$10,810.71) [TA CASE]
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Claudia J Perez Represented By Daniel King
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
$22,041.33)
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Kathy Reyne Koppie Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Hermisenda Delgado Represented By Judy P Hsu
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 21
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nicolas Gerard Arroyo Represented By Michael N Nicastro
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra Arla Arroyo Represented By Michael N Nicastro
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19; 8-15-19
Docket 128
SPECIAL NOTE: This Matter is Scheduled for 10:30 a.m.; See Calendar Item #37.1 - td (10/8/2019)
July 16. 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19; 8-15-19
Docket 130
SPECIAL NOTE: This Matter is Scheduled for 10:30 a.m.; See Calendar Item #37.2 - td (10/8/2019)
July 16. 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01187 Kosmala v. Liebeck et al
U.S.C. §§548(a)(1)(B) and 550; To preserve avoided transfers pursuant to 11
U.S.C. §552; and (8) For injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §105
(Another Summons Issued 1/31/19) FR: 1-31-19; 4-18-19; 5-16-19; 8-15-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Complaint with Prejudice filed 9/11/2019; No Answer Filed. Also, Per Amended Order Approving Motion for Approval of Global Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Adversary Actions with Prejudice Entered on Main Case 8:16-14227-ES on 8/27/2019, Document #187- td (9/12/2019)
January 31, 2019
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against attorney for Plaintiff for failing to timely file a status report. In addition, no proof of service has been filed showing
9:30 AM
proper service to defendants. Continue hearing to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. Court to issue OSC re Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute which will be heard on the same date/time as the continued hearing.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
April 18, 2019
Continue hearing to May 16, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 2, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report required by August 1, 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by such date. (XX)
August 15, 2019
In light of settlement, continue status conference to October 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 3, 2019 if an order approving the settlement has not been entered by such date. (XX)
Special note: As of August 8, 2019, there were no pending lodged orders re the settlement.
Note: Appearances at this hearing is not required. Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E Winfield
Defendant(s):
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Kevin Liebeck Pro Se
Shaunah Lynn Steelman Pro Se
Jodi Denise Steelman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Faye C Rasch
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01125 Sabha v. California State Board Of Equalization
(Another Summons Issued 8/1/2019)
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Joint status report was not timely filed. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against Plaintiff's counsel for failure to do so.
Discovery Cut-off Date: Dec. 20, 2019
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 17, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Feb. 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Feb. 6, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Mohammad R Sabha Represented By Bruce A Boice
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
California State Board Of Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mohammad R Sabha Represented By Bruce A Boice
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01032 Ismodes, Sr v. Pariscari
Fiduciary Duty; 6) Constructive Fraud; 7) CA Code 2923.55; 8) Conversion; 9) B&P 17200; And Objection to Claim Pursuant to 11 USC Section 502
FR: 5-16-19; 7-16-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that does not involve claims under 11 U.S.C. §727 filed 10/7/2019. Amended Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that does not involve claims under 11 U.S.C. §727 filed 10/7/2019. Answer filed 3/28/2019 - td (10/7/2019)
May 16, 2019
As a preliminary matter, plaintiff's counsel must appear and advise the court re the legal basis for Debtor's standing to prosecute this action for fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. as such claims are property the estate over which the chapter 7 trustee has exclusive control over. The court is not aware of any abandonment of such claims by the chapter 7 trustee. Importantly, this is not simply an objection to claim.
If Plaintiff's counsel can satisfactorily explain standing, then the following schedule will apply:
Deadline to complete discovery: Oct. 1, 2019
Deadline to attend mediation: Nov. 1, 2019
Deadline to file joint pretrial stipulation: Dec. 5, 2019
9:30 AM
Pretrial conference: Dec. 19, 2019
at 9:30 a.m.
Note: Appearances at this status conference are required.
July 16, 2019
Comments re the late-filed unilateral status report filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2019:
The updated joint status report was due by order of this court on July 2, 2019. No explanation/declaration has been submitted regarding the reason for the filing of the unilateral report eight days late. The court is inclined to impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against Plaintiff's counsel for the tardily filed report.
The unilateral status report does not address the standing issue raised by the court at the May 16, 2019 status conference. In the absence of abandonment of the nine claims for relief (i.e., exclusive of the objection to claim) by the trustee or a formal motion for authority to prosecute claims belonging to the estate, the court is unaware of any legal authority supporting Debtor's standing to prosecute such claims. The trustee's unsworn statement in the unilateral report that she "does not oppose" the adversary does not confer standing. The court finds the trustee's statement perplexing.
As to the one matter Debtor could prosecute, the objection to claim, the complaint does not any facts concerning the substance of the claim itself -- not even the amount of the claim.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
October 17, 2019
Take matter off calendar -- settled.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Defendant(s):
Brian Pariscari Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Italo Victor Ismodes Sr Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01035 SJO Investments, LLC v. Gilbert-Bonnaire
U.S.C. §1502 FR: 5-30-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 filed 9/9/2019 - td (9/10/2019)
May 30, 2019 | |
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 8/2/19 |
Deadline to Attend Mediation: | 9/13/19 |
Pretrial Conference Date: | 10/17/19 at 9:30 a.m. |
(XX) | |
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: | 10/3/19 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Represented By
Andrew Edward Smyth
Defendant(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
SJO Investments, LLC Represented By Jon Alan Enochs
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01044 Van der Laan v. Phong
FR: 6-20-19; 8-22-19; 9-12-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Under LBR 7055-1 entered 9/17/19; Default Judgment entered 9/18/19 RE: Section 523(a)(2)(A). Still pending re: Section 727(a)(4) - liz (9/20/2019)
June 20, 2019
Continue Status Conference to August 22, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule
9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
August 22, 2019
In light of pending motion for default judgment, continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
September 12, 2019
Declaration re non-opposition to pending motion for default judgment not filed. Continue status conference one final time to October 17, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
October 17, 2019
Plaintiff's counsel must appear and advise the court re the status of the 727 objection to discharge claim. Has notice of intent to dismiss such claim been served on the ch 7 trustee, US Trustee and all creditors per FRBP 7041?
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Jacob Van der Laan Represented By John E Lattin
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01037 Last Chance Funding, Inc. v. Mohan et al
FR: 5-30-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Entered 10/4/2019 (XX) - td (10/4/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Narendra Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
Defendant(s):
Narendra Mohan Pro Se
Anshu Mohan Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Anshu Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
Plaintiff(s):
Last Chance Funding, Inc. Represented By Robert L Rentto
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01155 Kang Family 2007 Revocable Trust v. Kim et al
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Continued to 1/16/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered
10/10/2019 (XX) - td (10/10/2019)
October 17, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Mar. 6, 2020
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 31, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Apr. 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulaton: Apr. 16, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Peter Woo Sik Kim Represented By Andrew S Bisom
Defendant(s):
Peter Kim Pro Se
9:30 AM
Sharon Kim Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Sharon Soyun Kim Represented By Andrew S Bisom
Plaintiff(s):
Kang Family 2007 Revocable Trust Represented By
Edmond Richard McGuire
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Lynda T Bui Rika Kido
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01157 Caraveo et al v. Ra
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Mar. 16, 2020
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Feb. 7, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Apr.16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Apr. 2, 2020
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to lodge a scheduling order within 7 days of the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Defendant(s):
Joseph Ra Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Marcelo Caraveo Represented By Christopher Barry
Holy Shirts and Pants, LLC Represented By
9:30 AM
Christopher Barry
Early Bird Restaurant, LLC Represented By Christopher Barry
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
10:00 AM
VS. DEBTOR FR: 9-19-19
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Grant motion with without 4001(a)(3) waiver and with co-debtor relief.
Special Note: The tentative ruling is to grant the Motion because Debtor did not provide documentary proof of payments he alleges to have made. If Movant is agreeable to a continuance to discuss a resolution, the parties may request a continuance of the hearing at the beginning of the calendar roll call. Available dates are Oct. 10, Oct. 17 and Nov. 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
October 17, 2019
Parties to advise of status of matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Ranulfo Figueroa Represented By Sunita N Sood Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Mark T. Domeyer Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 56
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor stay relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Linda Anne Boyer Represented By
Ramiro Flores Munoz
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Represented By
April Harriott Keith Labell Theron S Covey
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Eric P Enciso Sean C Ferry
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 71
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Daryl John Parks Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 109
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Ryan Correos Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Joint Debtor(s):
Samantha Ordinario Represented By Halli B Heston
Movant(s):
Santander Consumer USA Inc. Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jennifer H Wang
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 34
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Nam Howell Represented By
Rabin J Pournazarian
Movant(s):
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Represented By
Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 70
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) relief unless Debtor is postpetition current prior to the hearing or the parties have agreed to the terms of an adequate protection order. If more time is needed to finalize an adequate protection agreement, the parties may request a continuance during the the roll call of the calendar just prior to the hearing. Available continued hearing dates: Nov. 7, 2019, Nov. 19, 2019 or Nov. 21, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Movant(s):
Broker Solutions, Inc. dba New Represented By Christina J O
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 40
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. §362 (Real Property) [Settled by Stipulation]/APO Entered 10/16/2019 - td (10/16/2019)
October 17, 2019
Off Calendar
Debtor(s):
Mario Jonathan Saldivar Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Braddock Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, Represented By Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Miguel Patino Ramirez Represented By Marlin Branstetter
Movant(s):
Bank of America, N.A. Represented By Robert P Zahradka
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jonathan Jonas Represented By Alaa A Ibrahim
Movant(s):
Toyota Lease Trust Represented By Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Paul Edwin Baloloy Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 62
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion to re-open case through and including December 20, 2019. The Clerk may re-close the case on or after December 21, 2019 without further notice or order of the court.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Mark R. Stokes Represented By
J Scott Williams
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01207 EQD Corporation v. Woo et al
Docket 75
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion without leave to amend the first amended complaint filed in this court.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By Kent Salveson Marc Y Lazo
Defendant(s):
Jolynne Woo Pro Se
Kelsey Woo Pro Se
Steve Woo Pro Se
Kaufman Wu Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
10:30 AM
Kaufman Related Mamagement Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Related Management, a New York Represented By
Michael A Shakouri
Plaintiff(s):
EQD Corporation Represented By
Walter David Channels Kent Salveson
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Christopher J Green Reem J Bello
Beth Gaschen
10:30 AM
Docket 144
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion for hardship discharge with the exceptions noted in the Trustee's comments as to student loan debt and arrearages to secured creditor Finisterra in the amount of $5628.19.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Vanessa Frazier Elrousan Represented By Eliza Ghanooni
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
[WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 196
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
[WIELAND GOLDEN GOODRICH LLP, COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE]
Docket 189
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
[GROBSTEIN TEEPLE, LLP, ACCOUNTANTS FOR THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 191
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Denny Roy Steelman Represented By William E. Winfield
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello Faye C Rasch Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19; 9-19-19
Docket 90
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
The court is inclined to sustain the objection as to accrued interest and to overrule the objection as to the principal debt, i.e., $120,000.
The parties are to address the following issues: Debtor:
This court has already abstained from hearing the merits of case involving this loan in light of a pending state court action that Debtor initiated prepetition involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants. Debtor is to advise the court re the status of the state court litigation.
The court finds Debtor's argument that she doesn't owe anything to Claimant because she "never received the money," strains credulity in light of the joint venture agreement she entered into regarding the acquisition of the Sea Island property and her subsequent acknowledgement of the purchase. See Claimant's Opposition, Declaration of Angel Santiago and exhibits attached thereto; Declaration of Michael Van Ness, Exhibit 1.
Debtor's Objection does not explain or provide any legal analysis regarding
10:30 AM
relevance of Claimant's lack of a real estate license. She simply declares Claimant is not exempt from usury laws without any legal analysis. The court declines to do Debtor's research for her.
As of July 26, 2019, it appears Claimant is active and no longer suspended.
Even if the interest is usurious, the principal balance remains. Further, even if, because of the lack of notice, the note has not yet matured, the principal debt remains and has to be treated through Debtor's chapter 13 plan.
Claimant
Claimant's assertion of the nonapplicability of Cal. Civ. Code 2966 is unpersuasive in light of the fact that the note itself expressly states that "this note is subject to Section 2966 . . . which provides that the holder . . . shall give written notice to the trustor . . . at least 90 and not more than 150 days before any balloon payment is due." Thus, whether or not Section 2966 would have otherwise applied or not, Claimant clearly intended to provide the protections of Section 2966 by including it in the note that it presumably drafted. Absent notice given pursuant to the note, it has not yet matured.
The note is clearly usurious under California Constitution Article XV Section 1 as it exceeds 10% per annum. Claimant has the ultimate burden of proof and has not provided any basis for it being exempt from the usury law.
The court is not persuaded that Debtor's claim is time-barred. See Debtor's reply.
Special note: This court's ruling as to this claim objection cannot be used by or against any person or entity other than Debtor and Premier Home Solutions, Inc. in any other state or federal action. Further any ruling by this court regarding the subject proof of claim is without prejudice to Premier seeking prejudgment interest at the legal rate once notice is properly given under the note.
10:30 AM
September 19, 2019
Parties to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter. If additional time to memorialize the settlement is needed, a final continuance may be requested during the tentative ruling roll call prior to the hearing. Available hearing dates: Oct. 10, 2019 and Oct. 17, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
October 17, 2019
Parties to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 48
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Sustain objection (without prejudice to Debtor filing an amended Schedule C that properly cites the applicable exemption statute)
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Trustee is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and the Trustee will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Laura Marie Kroh Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
Docket 88
CONTINUED: Continued to 12/12/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 10/16/2019 (XX) - td (10/16/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01122 M.G.B. Construction, Inc. v. Duerscheidt
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion on condition that Defendant pays to Plaintiff's counsel attorneys fees in the amount of $1,137.50 by or before November 1, 2019 (must be received by 5:00 p.m. of such date). If the fees are timely paid, Defendant shall file a declaration confirming timely payment of the fees along with an order granting the motion. Once the order granting the motion is entered, Defendant must file an answer within 10 days thereafter. If Defendant fails to timely pay such fees, Plaintiff may file a declaration confirming such nontimely payment along with a proposed order denying the motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling :
Defendant has met the minimum requirements for setting aside the default. Standard
FRCP 55(c) , incorporated by FRBP 7055), allows a court to set aside an entry of default for "good cause shown." By contrast, a default judgment may only be set aside under FRCP 60(b). It is well-settled that the standard for setting aside a default is far less stringent than setting aside a default judgment. See, In re Bernal, 223 B.R. 542, 547 (9th Cir. BAP 1998) ("While relief from entry of default will be granted more readily and with a lesser showing than in a case of a default
10:30 AM
judgment, the defaulting party at a minimum must show “good cause” for vacating the entry of default under Rule 55(c)").
In Hawaii Carpenters' Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 513 (9th Cir. 1986), the 9th Circuit expounded on the different standards employed in setting aside a default vs. a default judgment:
"The different treatment of default entry and judgment by Rule 55(c) frees a court considering a motion to set aside a default entry from the restraint of Rule 60(b) and entrusts determination to the discretion of the court. As a practical matter, however, when considering a motion to set aside a default entry, the parallels between granting relief from a default entry and a default judgment encourage utilizing the list of grounds for relief provided in Rule 60(b), including considering whether a defendant has a meritorious defense. These Rule 60(b) grounds are liberally interpreted when used on a motion for relief from an entry of default.
The underlying concern, however, is to determine whether there is some possibility that the outcome of the suit after a full trial will be contrary to the result achieved by the default. Wright & Miller, supra, § 2697 (Supp.1986). A party in default thus is required to make some showing of a meritorious defense as a prerequisite to vacating an entry of default. Medunic v. Lederer, 533 F.2d 891, 893 (3d Cir.1976)." (emphasis added)
Meritorious Defense:
Regarding meritorious defense, while the proposed responses to the allegations are unsworn, the court does not interpret the responses in as "black and white" a fashion as Plaintiff does. For example, there is no facial inconsistency in Defendant's assertion that she never held title to the 2016 Lexus (the obvious inference being there was, therefore, no need to list the vehicle on her schedules). Similarly, the value of Restaurant Builders & Design Services and the circumstances under which Defendant gave up her interest in the same may be in dispute but this court cannot resolve or adjudicate the dispute at this juncture. See U.S. v. Aguilar, 782 F.3d 1101, 1107 ("All that is necessary to satisfy the ‘meritorious defense’ requirement is to allege sufficient facts that, if
10:30 AM
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."). Indeed, in this Circuit, the burden on a party seeking to vacate a default judgment "is not extraordinarily heavy." Id. The burden for vacating a default is even less so. Hawaii Carpenters' Trust Funds, supra.
Culpable Conduct
Applying the less stringent standard noted hereinabove, the court finds that Defendant has met the minimum standard for demonstrating lack of culpability. First, there is no evidence that she intentionally or strategically failed to respond to the complaint upon discovering it on PACER. Second, her stated reason for not immediately downloading the complaint is plausible given the varied subscription plans. Third, she did move to set the default aside within 60 days, which the court considers reasonable given her lack of legal representation at the time. According the the Rule 2016 Statement filed by her then attorney of record, Brian Soo-Hoo, the representation specifically excluded nondischargeabiity actions.
Prejudice to Plaintiff
Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence of prejudice to it if the default is set aside. The allegations regarding nefarious conduct by Defendant and her alleged partner in crime, Brian McTeggart, are currently unfounded and unsubstantiated. The references to conduct in the McTeggart bankruptcy adversary proceeding are of no moment for purposes of this motion -- no court transcript or findings of the court to support the allegations have been presented.
Attorneys Fees
The court believes that conditioning the setting aside of the default on the payment of Plaintiff's attorneys fees is reasonable under the circumstances and authorized by FRCP 55(c). See Hawaii Carpenters' Trust Funds at 514 (upholding the district court's order conditioning the setting aside of the default on the payment of attorneys fees). The court will allow 3.5 hours at $325/hr for
10:30 AM
preparing the request for default, preparing a response to the motion to vacate the response and for preparing for today's hearing.
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required and Movant shall lodge an order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Defendant(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Represented By Douglas A Plazak
Plaintiff(s):
M.G.B. Construction, Inc. Represented By Scott A Kron
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 47
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of Debtor's amended disclosure statement and Debtor's motion to sell real property.
Tentative ruling for 11/7/19 hearing: Dismiss case or convert case to chapter 7 if amended disclosure statement is not approved and/or the motion to sell is denied.
Special Note: The court is very concerned about the viability of a reorganization plan. As the sale of the Norwalk property is likely to net less than $9,000, Debtor must present proof that the other rental properties generate positive cash flow and provide a source of plan funding. Further, as the proposed sale is to an insider, Debtor must provide objective evidence of the fair market value of the Norwalk property.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
FR: 8-15-19; 9-19-19
Docket 74
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing Entered 10/2/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
August 15, 2019
Overrule objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Service Issues:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 3007 governs the manner of service of an objection to claim. Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that if an objection is to the claim of an "insured depository institution" service of the objection and notice must be a) to the person designated on the claimant's proof of claim by first class mail, AND b) in the manner provided by Rule 7004(h).
FRBP 7004(h) requires that service to an insured depository institution must be made by certified mail addressed to an officer of the institution unless the institution has appeared by its attorney, in which case the attorney shall be served by first class mail.
Bankruptcy Code Section 101(35)(B) defines "insured depository institution"
10:30 AM
as including "an insured credit union."
Because SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union ("SchoolsFirst" or "Claimant") is an insured credit union, Rule 3007(a)(2)(A)(ii) applies.
There is no record of an attorney appearing on behalf of SchoolsFirst in this case and, therefore, service by certified mail to the attention of an officer was required. Such service was not made.
Merits of the Objection:
A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(f) constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. See Rule 3001(f); In re Lundell, 223 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, a proof of claim will be deemed allowed unless a party in interest objects. Lundell, 223 F.3d at 1039. Once a party in interest objects, the proof of claim will still provide some evidence as to its validity and amount, and will be strong enough to carry over a mere formal objection without more. Id. Thus, a party objecting to a claim must present affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing "facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claims." Id. (citing In re Holm, 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); In re King Street Inv., Inc., 219 B.R. 848, 858 (BAP 9th Cir. 1998). If the objector produces sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039. The ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times upon the claimant. Id.; Holm, 931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991).
In this case, Claimant filed the Claim in accordance with Rule 3001. The Claim was filed on Official Form 410 and included supporting documentation, such as evidence of the outstanding debt. See, Obj., Ex. A (the Claim). Thus, Claimant has complied with Rule 3001 and the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity under Rule 3001(f).
10:30 AM
Because the Claim is entitled to prima facie validity, Debtor is required to present affirmative evidence to overcome the prima facie validity by the Claim. Debtor must produce sufficient evidence to negate one or more of the sworn facts in the Claim, thereby reverting the burden to Claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Lundell, 233 F.3d at 1039.
Adequacy of the Proof of Claim
Debtor argues in conclusory manner without any legal support or authority that Claimant has not provided "adequate proof" of its claims and that "statements on the account from 2013 to present" is required. The court is unaware of any such requirement.
Rule 3001(a) requires that the proof of claim must "confirm substantially to the appropriate Official Form." In this case, the proof of claim is filed on Official Form 410.
Rule 3001(c)(3) provides that when a claim is based on an open-end or revolving consumer credit agreement, certain information is required such as, the name of the entity to whom the debt is owed, the date of the last transaction, the date of the last payment on the account and the date on which the account was charged off.
The statement attached to the proof of claim indicates that it is a revolving credit card debt and, therefore, Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) applies. The statement appears to include all of the required information. Rule 3001(c)(3)(A) does not require that all monthly statements be attached.
Community Debt
Debtor also argues that the debt owed to SchoolsFirst is a community debt but provides no legal support or authority as to why the debt's status as "community" represents a legal basis for disallowance of the claim. Under California Family Code Sec. 910(a), "the community estate is liable for a debt incurred by either spouse before or during marriage, regardless of . . . whether one or both spouses are parties to the debt . . . ." In this case, the credit
10:30 AM
obligation is in the name of both Debtor and her ex-spouse and is a community debt, as she admits. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a community claim is a prepetition claim for which community property is liable for repayment of the claim. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 101(7) and 541(a)(2).
Allocation of Community Debt
Finally, Debtor argues that her ex-spouse, Ryal Richards, is 100% liable for the subject debt pursuant to certain state court orders. However, the only state court order attached to the Objection is one issued February 22, 2016 ("February 22 Order") which simply states in paragraph 3 that Mr. Richards is to "continue to pay the household bills including food and the minor's extracurricular activities." The February 22 Order does not, however, expressly or impliedly assign liability of all community debt or even liability for this particular debt exclusively to Mr. Richards. Stated otherwise, the plain language of the February 22 Order does not establish grounds for disallowing SchoolsFirst's claim on the grounds asserted by Debtor in the Objection.
Based upon all of the foregoing, Debtor has not satisfied her burden of presenting affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity by showing facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the subject proof of claim.
September 19, 2019
Overrule Objection for the same reasons set forth above in Section B of the Tentative Ruling for August 15, 2019
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Deadline to file Plan and Disclosure Statement: 10/21/19 Continued Status Conference Date: 11/21/19 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report due date: 11/7/19 unless a plan & DS
filed, in which case requirement of a report will
have been the
be waived.
Special Note: The court does not ordinarily set a deadline for the filing of objections to claim.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
October 17, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Debtor's motion to extend exclusivity. Updated status report not required.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01187 Legal Service Bureau Inc v. Miller et al
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion to remand the entire matter under 28 USC 1452(b). Basis for Tentative Ruling
Timeliness:
The court notes, as a preliminary matter, that the removal was timely under FRBP 9027(a)(2). There is no question that the action was stayed by the filing of the bankruptcy petition and that no order granting relief from the stay has been entered (which would trigger the 30-day period for filing a removal).
Merits
Remand:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), the court to which a “claim or cause of action is removed may remand such claim or cause of action on any equitable ground.” (emphasis added)
10:30 AM
Courts typically consider a range of factors in deciding whether to grant a motion to remand. As set forth in In re Cytodyn of New Mexico, Inc., 374 B.R. 733, 738 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2007), citing Citigroup, Inc. v. Pacific Inv. Mgmt. Co. (In re Enron Corp.), 296 B.R. 505, 508 (C.D.Cal.2003) such factors may include:
The effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a court recommends remand.
-- Remand of this action back to state court will not negatively impact the efficient administration of the estate, nor will it hinder Debtor's ability to propose a plan of reorganization. The primary defendants in the subject action are Debtor's principals on the basis of alter ego claims. Defendants would be compelled to litigate the action in this Court, if not in state court -- particularly in light of the fact that the Court believes that Debtor has stated insufficient grounds for the imposition of an injunction enjoining the litigation of the removed action in this court. See tentative ruling for Calendar #33.1.
The extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues
-- The removed action is comprised entirely of state law claims
The jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334
-- There is no jurisdictional basis for the claims other than 28 U.S.C. 1334
The degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case
-- The removed is, at its core, an action against the principals of Debtor and not Debtor directly. The apparent objective of the suit is enable Plaintiff to enforce its judgment against Debtor against Debtor's principals. For this reason, the court considers the degree of relatedness to be low.
The substance rather than form of an asserted “core” proceeding
10:30 AM
-- The removed action is not a core proceeding
The presence in the proceeding of nondebtor parties
-- Other than Debtor, as a nominal defendant, all of the parties are nondebtors.
Other Factors
-- The court is unpersuaded by Debtor's argument that Plaintiff's filing of a proof of claim in Debtor's case constitutes "consent" to the jurisdiction of this court to hear the alter ego action. The adjudication of the alter ego action will not resolve issues relating to the proof of claim filed against Debtor. Presumably, if Plaintiff prevails in the alter ego action, it will have alternative sources from which to satisfy its judgment against Debtor. In such circumstance, Debtor could not, through the claims allowance process, compel Plaintiff to enforce its judgment against Debtor's principals first or at all. Conversely, whether Debtor is able successfully dispute the amount or basis for liability re the proof of claim is not dependent or affected by the adjudication of the equitable alter ego claims. The cases cited by Debtor in its opposition as to this point are inapposite. Stated otherwise, the claims allowance process will not resolve the alter ego claims.
-- The court rejects Debtor's argument that if the motion is granted, remand should be limited to the nondebtor parties and should, effectively, sever Debtor from the litigation. First, Debtor is not the primary target of the action. Second, the principals have already commenced responding to discovery requests, so any discovery burden on Debtor should be minimal. See Motion, Declaration of Timothy Aires at paragraph 6.
Abstention
The court has determined that abstention under 28 USC 1334(c) in not an available option where a case has been removed from state court as abstention is only effective when there is a pending proceeding in state court. See Security Farms v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Abstention can exist only where there is a parallel proceeding in state
10:30 AM
court. That is, inherent in the concept of abstention is the presence of a pendent state action in favor of which the federal court must, or may, abstain.")
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe Ryan S Riddles
Defendant(s):
Leslie Anne Miller Pro Se
Robert L Miller Pro Se
Orange County Bail Bonds Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Legal Service Bureau Inc Represented By Timothy C Aires
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01187 Legal Service Bureau Inc v. Miller et al
FR: 10-10-19
Docket 5
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Deny motion
Basis for Tentative Ruling
The motion is moot if the court stays with its tentative ruling for Calendar #33 (motion to remand).
Even if the motion to remand is denied, the court would still be inclined to deny this motion on the following grounds:
The motion effectively seeks to extend the automatic stay to nondebtor principals of Debtor. Debtor has provided no evidence that the enjoining of the removed action will assist in a successful reorganization by "distracting" defendants Leslie and Robert Miller (collectively, the Millers). In fact, Debtor has not presented the declarations of either Leslie or Robert Miller attesting to the liklihood or the effect of such distraction. See Declaration of Robert Miller.
Debtor argues that the Millers are "making a meaningful contribution towards reorganization through their operation of the Debtor's businesss."
10:30 AM
Motion at p. 8. However, the most recent MOR filed by Debtor for the period ending August 31, 2019 does not reflect any such meaningful contribution --- in fact for such period Debtor is showing negative net income of $8,525.27 and an average net monthly income for the entire postpetition period of only $5,422.34, even without the distraction of the state court action by virtue of the automatic stay which currently remains in place.
Debtor asserts that the sale of the Saddozai Residence "should pay all or almost all of the debt owed to Plaintiff." Motion at p. 13. However, with no evidence whatsoever, Debtor asserts a value of $950,000 for the Saddozai residence, a value that is $100,000 higher than the value Mr. Saddozai, the owner of the property, listed in his bankruptcy Schedule A ($850,000).
b. The court incorporates by reference Plaintiff's opposition at pp. 6-7 regarding the likely net proceeds from the sale of the Saddozai property using the scheduled value of $850,000 and deducting amounts for the 1st deed of trust ($358,350.19), costs of sale of 6% ($51,000) and estimated Trustee/administrative fees ($100,000), resulting in net proceeds of $340,649.81. Notably, Plaintiff's calculation does not include the $100,000 homestead exemption Mr. Saddozai claimed on his Schedule C, which reduces the likely net proceeds to $240,649.81. In addition, Mr. Saddozai lists additional unsecured debt of over $100,000 that is unrelated to Debtor's proof of claim in the amount of more than $600,000. Based on the evidence before the court, the likelihood that the sale of the Saddozai property will result in the payment of all or most of the debt owed by Debtor to Plaintiff -- whether that claim is determined to be
$395,000 or $543,000, is slim to nil.
c. Debtor asserts that the Millers will contribute postpetition financing to Debtor to assist in Debtor's business operations and reorganization but provide no specifics (or even a range) regarding the amount of such contribution or the financial ability of the Millers to do so.
Based upon the foregoing circumstances and evidence, Debtor has not satisfied its burden of proof as to likelihood of a successful reorganization, irreparable harm, balance of hardships in its favor, or public interest.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe Ryan S Riddles
Defendant(s):
Leslie Anne Miller Pro Se
Robert L Miller Pro Se
Orange County Bail Bonds Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Movant(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Legal Service Bureau Inc Pro Se
10:30 AM
LEGAL SERVICE BUREAU INC. VS.
DEBTOR FR: 10-3-19
Docket 42
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
The court is inclined to grant this Motion and to abstain under 28 U.S.C. 1452(b).
Section 1452(b) allows the court to remand a removed action on "any equitable ground." The court finds that equitable grounds for remand exist in this matter based upon the following:
The subject action involves exclusively state law issues and no federal question or bankruptcy law issues;
There are multiple non-debtor parties involved in the action;
There is no jurisdictional basis other than 28 USC 1334;
The matter does not arise under a bankruptcy case or under
10:30 AM
bankruptcy law.
October 17, 2019
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) waiver. Basis for Tentative Ruling
Same reasons stated in the court's tentative ruling re Movant's motion for remand of the removed action, which the court incorporates by reference herein.
Overrule Debtor's objections.
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Movant(s):
Legal Service Bureau Inc. dba Represented By Timothy C Aires
10:30 AM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion by United States Trustee to Dismiss Case Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b) Entered 10/9/2019 - td (10/9/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gateway Business Complex LLC Represented By
Michael H Raichelson
10:30 AM
Docket 18
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
10827 Studebaker LLC, a California Represented By
Steven Werth
10:30 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Claims bar date: Jan. 17, 2020 (notice to be served by 11/15/19
Deadline to file plan/DS Feb. 20, 2020
Continued Status Conf.: Apr. 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report Due: Mar. 19, 2019 (unless the plan/DS has been
the report
filed by such date, in which case requirement will be waived)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
10827 Studebaker LLC, a California Represented By
Steven Werth
10:30 AM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Ricardo Alcantara Bernal Pro Se
Movant(s):
United States Trustee (SA) Represented By
Nancy S Goldenberg
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19; 8-15-19
Docket 128
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Approving Stipulation Between Plaintiff and Defendant to Conduct Judgment Debtor Examination Entered 9/20/2019. JDE to be Held on 10/9/2019 at 10:00 am. Per Mr. Goe, this hearing is to remain on calendar unless Stephen Haythorne appears at exam on 10/9/2019. Mr. Goe will file a declaration stating if he appears show that this matter can be taken off calendar - td (9/23/2019)
July 16. 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
10:30 AM
October 17, 2019
Judgment creditor has not sought the issuance of an OSC re contempt. Continue hearing to November 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. Any motion for OSC re contempt may be heard on the same date.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19; 8-15-19
Docket 130
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Approving Stipulation Between Plaintiff and Defendant to Conduct Judgment Debtor Examination Entered 9/20/2019. JDE to be Held on 10/9/2019 at 10:00 am. Per Mr. Goe, this hearing is to remain on calendar unless Kelli Haythorne appears for exam prior to this examination. Mr. Goe will file a declaration stating if she appears show that this matter can be taken off calendar - td (9/23/2019)
July 16. 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
10:30 AM
October 17, 2019
Judgment creditor has not sought the issuance of an OSC re contempt. Continue hearing to November 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. Any motion for OSC re contempt may be heard on the same date.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:19-01168 Mitchell v. Nasiri et al
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) and Request for Sanctions
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant the Motion. Deny request for attorneys fees Pleading Standards
FRCP Rule 8(a)
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
FRCP Rule 9(b)
Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a
2:00 PM
party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.
FRCP 12(b)(6) -- Failure to state a claim upon which can be granted
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and probability of entitlement to relief. In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
In Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007), the Supreme Court established more stringent notice-pleading standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A plaintiff is required to provide more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ...." Id. The plaintiff must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Standards re Sufficiency of a Pleading as a Complaint
The purpose of notice pleading is to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Classic Auto Refinishing v. Marino (In re Marino), 37 F.3d 1354, 1357 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Consequently, “all pleadings shall be
2:00 PM
construed so as to do substantial justice.” Id. (citing, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. at 48 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(f))). Under the view of flexible construction, the rules governing the form of pleading should be liberally construed, and motions to dismiss complaints based on pleading errors are to be disfavored. In re Jagitsch, 201 B.R. 961, 963 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1996). Courts adopting this view ignore the deficient format of the pleadings and instead focus on the substance of the document in determining whether the pleading substantially complies with the required elements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8—the most important element being the adequacy of notice. See In re Marino, 37 F.3d at 1357–58 (holding that notice of the nature of the relief claimed is the primary criterion in determining whether a deficient pleading constitutes a complaint under Rule 7008).
Classic Auto Refinishing v. Marion (In re Marino), 37 F.3d 1354, 1357 (9th Cir. 1995)
In Marino, the pleading to which the plaintiff wanted the untimely complaint to relate back was an “Opposition to Sale” filed in the bankruptcy case before the bar date. Marino, 37 F.3d at 1357. The court found that the opposition to sale failed to substantially comply with the pleading requirements of a complaint, so the later filed complaint was untimely. Specifically, the court stated "[Plaintiff] points to no language in the Opposition or documents filed with it that demands a judgment of nondischargeability as required by Rule 8(a)." Id.
Further, the court observed that the pleading did not include a caption or file number as required by FRCP 7(a) and 10(a), and did not specific whether the matter was core or non-core as required by Rule 7008(a). Id. at 1357.
In re Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995). In Dominguez, the pleading at issue was a “Memorandum re Relationship between Order Confirming Trustee's Plan and Debtor Discharge.” The BAP found the Discharge Memorandum sufficient because it challenged Dominguez' right to a discharge and provided appropriate allegations and at least some substantive evidence to support the challenge. In affirming the BAP's decision, the 9th Circuit found that the subject memorandum was sufficient to constitute a complaint, making the following findings:
"The Discharge Memorandum urged the bankruptcy court to address the
2:00 PM
extent to which the confirmation order should discharge Dominguez' debts. The memorandum cited the statutory criteria upon which the Millers relied in making their claim of nondischargeability, and it referenced specific sections of the examiner's report as support for their allegations that the criteria had been satisfied. It stated the Millers' claim for relief, in that it claimed that the confirmation order could not discharge Dominguez' debts under the law. Thus, we agree with the BAP that the facts here are distinguishable from the facts in Marino, where we found that the document failed to put the debtor on notice of the claim for relief." Id. at 1509.
Miyasaki v. Lui (In re Lui), 2014 WL 904587 (B.A.P. 9th Cir., March 7, 2014). In this case the creditor filed an objection to confirmation of debtor's plan before the deadline for filing nondischargeability complaints and later filed a formal complaint after the deadline. The objection to confirmation stated in relevant part:
"Miyasaki's claim arises from a $50,000 promissory note that the debtor executed on June 1, 2005 as partial payment for the property located ... Serena Way, Santa Clara, California. The note was originally made to the late Richard Graber, the seller of ... Serena Way, and later assigned to Miyasaki. The due date of the note was June 1, 2010 in the amount of $65,000. The debtor made no payments on the note nor did she offer to make payments. She represented herself in the state collection proceedings and made it clear that she had never intended to pay the promissory note and had signed it to induce Mr. Graber to convery [sic] ... Serena Way to her. Miyasaki believes that, accordingly, the debt was incurred through fraud and is thereby non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2). Miyasaki intends to file an adversary proceeding on this issue."
The BAP held that the foregoing statements were insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of Rules 8(a) and 9 and, therefore the late-filed complaint could not relate back to the objection. The analysis of the BAP is set forth below in relevant part:
"The forgoing cases [Marino, Dominguez, Markus v. Gschwend (In re Markus), 313 F.3d 1146, 1150–51 (9th Cir.2002)] teach that application of the substantial compliance doctrine is concerned with notice and not just “some notice,” but notice that substantially complies with the requirements of the
2:00 PM
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In re Markus, 313 F.3d at 1150 (framing the “dispositive question” as whether the timely filed pleading put the debtor on notice that the creditor was objecting to her discharge); In re Marino, 37 F.3d at 1357 (the policy of construing pleadings liberally does not justify the conclusion that any document filed in a court giving some notice of a claim satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules).
The type of notice required for nondischargeability complaints based on fraud is set forth in Civil Rules 8 and 9, made applicable to bankruptcy proceedings under Rules 7008 and 7009. Generally, under Civil Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. “[T]he main purpose of the complaint is to provide notice of what plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which the claim rests [the] plaintiff must at least set forth
enough details so as to provide a defendant and the court with a fair idea of the basis of the complaint and the legal grounds claimed for recovery.” Acequia, Inc.
Clinton (In re Acequia, Inc.), 34 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir.1994). Rule 7008(a) imposes the additional requirement that the complaint contain a statement that the proceeding before a bankruptcy judge is core or non-core.
When fraud is alleged, Civil Rule 9(b) requires more. Under that rule, “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2009). [Civil] Rule 9(b) demands that the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud be specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct so that they can defend against
the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong. Averments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the misconduct charged. A party alleging fraud must ‘set forth more than the neutral facts necessary to identify the transaction.’ Id. at 1124–25. “Fraud can be averred either directly, by specifically averring fraud, or indirectly, by alleging facts that, if true, would necessarily constitute fraud even if the word ‘fraud’ is not used.” Id. at 1124. “[M]ere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, 885 F.2d 531, 540 (9th Cir.1989)."
In analyzing the the excerpt noted above regarding nondischargeability,
2:00 PM
the BAP had this to say:
Only at the end of her Objection in ¶ 6 does Appellant mention debtor's alleged fraud, that the debt was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2), and that she intended to file an adversary proceeding on this issue. However, ¶ 6 does not make up for Appellant's failure to file a timely nondischargeability complaint.
Although Appellant mentions § 523(a)(2) as a basis for her nondischargeability claim, we conclude that ¶ 6 does not contain enough details to provide debtor with a fair idea of the basis for Appellant's claim and the legal grounds claimed for recovery for several reasons.
First, Appellant fails to differentiate between § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B) and the justifiable reliance or reasonable reliance standards of those sections.
Although counsel argued at the hearing on this matter that Appellant's fraud claim could only be under § 523(a)(2)(A), even in that case she does not mention facts showing Graber's reliance on debtor's misrepresentations at all.
Second, the neutral and conclusory facts as alleged do not meet the standard for pleading a fraud claim with the particularity required under Civil Rule 9(b). See Dominguez, 51 F.3d at 1508 (explaining that within the context of bankruptcy, courts construe deficient pleadings liberally, if the pleading substantially complies with requirements of a complaint under Civil Rule 9(b) by providing “fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”); see also Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1124; Moore, 885 F.2d at 540.
Next, it does not appear that Appellant makes a demand for relief in the Objection pertaining to the nondischargeability of the debt. See In re Marino, 37 F.3d at 1357 (noting that there was no language in the Opposition or documents filed with it that demands judgment of nondischargeability as required by Civil Rule 8(a)). Instead, Appellant states in ¶ 6 that she intended to file an adversary proceeding based on her legal conclusion that debtor committed fraud.
Finally, there is no statement that the proceeding was core or non-core as required under Rule 7008(a). Id. at 1357. Although counsel argued at the hearing that implicitly the matter could only be core because Appellant alleged the debt was nondischargeable under § 523(a), the Marino court found it significant that this requirement for a complaint was lacking. We cannot simply stretch the substantial compliance doctrine to fit the notice requirements for a complaint
2:00 PM
through implication, especially when faced with the strict deadline under Rule 4007(c) for filing complaints objecting to the dischargeability of specific debts.
Due to these deficiencies, we conclude that ¶ 6 of Appellant's Objection is closer to the documents in Markus and Marino than Dominguez."
The Sufficiency of the Pleading filed on August 8, 2019
The court finds the BAP's analysis and application of the 9th Circuit's decisions in Marino, Dominquez and Marcus to be compelling to the circumstances presented by this matter. Having considered all of these cases and the rulings therein, this court concludes that the August 8, 2019 pleading is wholly insufficient as a "complaint" for the following reasons:
Though the first line of the pleading generally references "523" and "727", no specific allegations relating to 523(a)(2), 523(a)(6), or any subsection of 727 are set forth thereafter.
There are no factual allegations made as to any of the allegations of fraud relevant to 523(a)(2).
There are no factual allegations made as to willful and malicious injury relevant to a claim under 523(a)(6).
There are no factual allegations made as to any statutory claims for relief relevant to a denial of discharge under 727.
There is no demand for a judgment of nondischargeability or denial of discharge.
The allegation that Defendant Renee Nasiri acted as attorney for Plaintiff's father and the AKL parties does not come close to asserting a claim for nondischargeability under either 523(a)(2)(A) or 523(a)(6).
The general statement that Debtors "aided and abetted" the AKL parties is wholly insufficient to putting Defendant on notice of the basis for
2:00 PM
nondischargeability or denial of discharge. Indeed, the sentence is incomplete and does not even state as to what Defendants aided and abetted the AKL parties in doing and how such conduct states a claim under 523 or 727.
Though the pleading references the state court complaint, it is not attached. However, even if it were attached, it would make no difference to the analysis as neither Defendant is named or mentioned in the state court complaint which seeks relief against the AKL parties only.
The bottom line is, even applying the most liberal pleading standards, the pleading in question facially and patently insufficient to be deemed a complaint. This is not a "Dominguez" situation. Importantly, the language which the BAP rejected Miyasaki is far closer to suffciency on the Rule 8/Rule 9 spectrum than the pleading at issue here. Consquently, the amended complaint filed on August 9, 2019 is untimely and does not "relate back" to the pleading filed on August 8 as there is no complaint to which it can relate back.
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Defendant(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Don Emil Brand
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Don Emil Brand
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Plaintiff(s):
Jacqueline Mitchell Represented By
2:00 PM
Trustee(s):
Thomas R. Phinney Thomas Phinney
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Timothy B Lovell Represented By Alisa Admiral
Joint Debtor(s):
Jeana M Lovell Represented By Alisa Admiral
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Peter Stankovich Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ken Saclo Represented By
Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 9/10/2019 - td (9/10/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric Stevens Bowman Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Heather Gomes Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 4
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Fouse Represented By
Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 9/16/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Philip H Inman Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Denying Debtor's Amended Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Hearing on Confirmation of Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan Entered 10/16/2019 - td (10/16/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Randy James Allison Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Yalcin Aslan Represented By
Clifford Bordeaux
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 8/30/2019 - td (8/30/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jose RamirezTinajero Represented By Peter L Nisson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rebecca Lujan Robles Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 8/26/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paul Edwin Baloloy Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lauren Lizbeth Witek Represented By Dana M Douglas
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Luis G. Rivas Sanchez Represented By Steven B Lever
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lisa Nguyen Represented By
Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thana Eddik Represented By
Gregory M Shanfeld
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Augusta Ayona Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
OFF CALENDAR: Debtors' Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 10/16/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (10/17/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joel Cabrera Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Guadalupe Haydee Sauza Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sandie A. Campanilla Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Diana Gomez Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jamie Christa Carroll Represented By Seema N Sood
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Natalie L Wade Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Alan Kohn Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Debra V Green Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 8
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 10/7/2019 - td (10/7/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Karla Golbert Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Timothy Madison Seagondollar Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Charles William Hutchison Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert W Hickman Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
FR: 3-27-18; 7-17-18; 9-25-18; 11-27-18; 1-22-19; 3-26-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19;
8-27-19; 9-24-19
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 41
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 49
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 10/21/2019 - td (10/22/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bertha Zapata Represented By Gary Polston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 25
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jeffrey J. Axton Represented By Bruce D White
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 67
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trusteed's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 10/9/2019 - td (10/10/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 39
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Majid Nick Nikki Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 53
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 10/17/2019 - td (10/17/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Valerie E. LaHaye Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 4-23-19; 5-21-19; 6-25-19; 8-27-19; 9-24-19
Docket 113
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 10/15/2019 - td (10/15/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Giuseppe Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Joint Debtor(s):
Heldia F. De Galietta Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 8-27-19; 9-24-19
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Troy Bernard Jemerson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 124
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Catherina D. Salazar Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 9-24-19
Docket 131
OFF CALENDAR: Trustee's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 10/17/2019 - td (10/17/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Vanessa Frazier Elrousan Represented By Eliza Ghanooni
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Derivative; (2) Constructive Trust
(Advanced from 6-14-18)
FR: 6-7-18; 7-19-18; 12-20-18; 5-2-19; 5-7-19; 8-22-19
Docket 47
- NONE LISTED -
July 19, 2018
The following discovery schedule applies to Plaintiff and Defendant Haleh Fardi:
Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 19, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Nov. 16, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Dec. 6, 2018
Deadline for Plaintiff to move for entry of default judgments as to non-answering
defendants: Sept. 21, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
May 7, 2019
9:30 AM
Court's Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
A demand for jury trial has been made. Each party is required indicate whether they consent or do not consent to the jury trial being conducted in this court. Absent 100% consent by all parties, the jury trial must be held in District Court. Statements re consent or nonconsent to this court conducting the jury trial must be filed with the court by May 21, 2019.
The facts to which Defendant Russell Wallace admitted to in his answer should be reflected in the Admitted Facts Section of the Stipulation.
Re Section (c)(1) of the Issues of Law, why must a determination be made at trial re whether Mr. Redman and Mr. Martin breached their fiduciary duties to 29 Prime when defaults have been entered against both gentlemen?
Why isn't Ms. Fardi ready for trial? The reason(s) should have been set forth in the Stipuation.
Any motions in limine need to be filed no later than June 18, 2019 and scheduled for hearing no later than July 16, 2019.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
August 22, 2019
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation filed 8/16/19:
Who has signed off on the JPS. No signatures for either of the remaining defendants, Russell Wallace or Haleh Fardi. Did either of them participate in the preparation of this JPS?
The JPS is supposed to include a section on all admitted facts that require no proof. So, why does that section include the statement that Ms. Fardi "disputes" the admitted facts? That would make them NOT admitted. Which facts does she actually dispute?
9:30 AM
Why does the admitted facts section include Nos. 13, 18 - 48 which all appear to be DISPUTED FACTS????
Why does (f) state that plaintiff "intends to file a motion in limine" when such a motion was already filed as of August 16, 2019, the date the JPS was submitted?
Special Note: If at all possible, the court would like for the trustee, Richard Marshack to participate in this hearing.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
November 7, 2019
Continue the Pretrial Conference to December 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed Due to the Inability of Plaintiff to Properly Prosecute This Adversary Proceeding. The OSC hearing shall take place on Dec. 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Plaintiff's counsel has failed to timely comply with a strict order of this court re the service of an amended joint pretrial stipulation -- once again causing further delay and confusion for the defendants. The apologies offered are shallow and of no moment. The pretrial conference has previously been continued twice due to counsel's inability to present a proper, coherent and timely pretrial stipulation. Enough is enough.
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
9:30 AM
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01118 Smith, III v. Swindell et al
FR: 11-8-18; 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19
Docket 3
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 as to Defendants Casey Swindell and Kimberly Amaral Only filed 8/29/18 - td (8/30/2018). Order Granting Motion for Entry of Judgment Against Defendant David P. Hutchens Lodged in LOU on 6/11/19, Order # 8292660. Patrick Swindell will be last defendant remaining - td (6/11/2019)
November 8, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a formal motion to serve complaint by publication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.7004(c). Informal request in a declaration (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 6, 2018
No updated status report filed -- plaintiff's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of the adversary and why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file a status report.
9:30 AM
January 31, 2019
Continue status conference to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by February 25, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
March 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. ; updated Status Report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending mediation, continue status conference to June 20, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 6, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this status conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to July 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in light of Plaintiff's pending motion for entry of default judgment as to Patrick Swindell, which motion is under review by the court. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
9:30 AM
July 18, 2019
Court's Comments re the Pending Motion for Default Judgment re Defendant David Hutchens:
Service:
On November 6, 2018, this court granted Plaintiff's application for permission to serve Hutchens with the summons and complaint by publication. The application indicated that Plaintiff had previously attempted to serve Hutchens at a a post office box obtained through a skip trace search i.e., "P.O. Box 2313, Murphys, CA 92547" but that the service had been "refused." It is not clear whether the refusal was by Hutchens, the owner of the post office box, or the Post Office itself.
Pursuant to the November 6, 2018 Order (Publication Order), Plaintiff served the summons and complaint by publication in the Calaveras Enterprise.
Inesplicably, the Motion for Default Judgment was not served by publication but was instead served to the P.O. Box which had previously been refused and to a different zip code, 95287 and not 95247.
Based upon the foregoing it appears that service is not effective. Merits
9011: FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A) includes a safe harbor provision, service of the request for sanctions 21 days before it is filed with the court. Re the failure to prosecute the adversary, Hutchens could not legally do so after September 1, 2017 because he was disbarred. Can't be sanctioned for that. As to the proof of claim, no compliance with the safe harbor provision. Further, after September 1, 2017, Hutchens could not represent the other defendants and, therefore, likely had no authority to withdraw the proof of claim even if the safe harbor provision had been complied with.
9:30 AM
Legal Fees: The Motion appears to include all attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff. Attorneys fees should be limited to matters specifically involving Hutchens during the time he was legally able to represent the other defendants, such as fees associated wtih Hutchens' failure to comply with LBR 7026 in the Swindell Adversary prior to his ineligibility to practice law on Sept. 1, 2017.
To the extent that fees are requested based on the allegation that Hutchens' purported false allegation caused the Trustee to file his adversary proceeding, such fees are not appropriate as the Trustee has an independent duty to investigate and to prosecute based on his own judgment.
November 7, 2019
In light of the pendency of two motions for default judgment, continue the status conference to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Special Note re the motion for default judgment against David Hutchens and Patrick Swindell):
David Hutchens
There is a pending motion for default judgment against defendant David Hutchens ("Hutchens"), as well as an amended memorandum of points and authorities in support of such judgment filed August 30, 2019. Though the motion for default judment is not on calendar today, the court wishes to advise counsel for plaintiff that it intends to rule as follows regarding the uncontested motion.
Rule 7016-1(f(3) Monetary Sanctions:
The motion will be granted in part to allow a default judgment in the amount of
$2,000 in monetary sanctions for reimbursement of reasonable attorneys fees associated with nondischargeability adversary proceeding no 16-01269 -- specifically, Plaintiff's appearance at the court-ordered mediation for which Hutchens did not appear and for preparation of the motion to dismiss. The
9:30 AM
amount is based on the court's assessment of reasonabless as Plaintiff did not submit time records with sufficient detail regarding 7016-1(f)(3) sanctions. The time records submitted include time charged for a variety of services unrelated to to the Hutchens' failures regarding that adversary proceeding.
Rule 9011 Sanctions
The motion is denied as to Rule 9011 sanctions due to Plaintiff's failure comply with the safe harbor provision of FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A). This is a mandatory provision and this court cannot grant relief without compliance with the same. See, Islamic Shura Council of S. California v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2014); In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003). This court lacks authority to "waive" the 21-day safe harbor provision and Plaintiff has provided no such legal authority for doing so. See, Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995); Islamic Shura supra. Rule 9011 sanctions is, therefore, not an available remedy for Plaintiff in light of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the same.
Plaintiff may lodge an order providing for the granting in part of the motion for default judgment in the amount of $2,000 pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1(f)(3) and denying as to sanctions pursuant to FRBP 9011.
Patrick Swindell
Deny motion pursuant to FRBP 9011 due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the safe harbor provision of FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A). This is a mandatory provision and this court cannot grant relief without compliance with the same. See, Islamic Shura Council of S. California v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870 (9th Cir.
2014); In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003). This court lacks authority to "waive" the 21-day safe harbor provision and Plaintiff has provided no such legal authority for doing so. See, Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995); Islamic Shura supra. Rule 9011 sanctions is, therefore, not an available remedy for Plaintiff in light of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the same.
Proof of Claim #1
9:30 AM
Deny motion as to the requested disallowance of Proof of Claim #1. Both the amended complaint and the motion are breathtakingly incoherent and fail to state a clear legal or factual basis for disallowance. Notably, a proof of claim is presumed valid when filed and the objecting party has the burden to provide evidence sufficient to shift the burden back to the claimant. Plaintiff has failed to do so in this matter, either via the amended complaint or the motion for default judgment.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Defendant(s):
Patrick Swindell Pro Se
David P Hutchens Pro Se
Casey Swindell Pro Se
Kimberly Amaral Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01141 Richard A Marshack v. SNCR California, Inc., et al
Declaratory Relief (Successor Liability); 2. Intentional Fraudulent Transfer; 3. Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; 4. Preservation of Avoided Transfer; 5.
Turnover of Assets; 6. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 7. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; 8. Unjust Enrichment (Another Summons Issued 12/6/10)
FR: 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 4-4-19; 4-16-19; 6-20-19; 8-22-19
Docket 55
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Adversary Proceeding Against Kirk Nelson Only filed 1/7/2019, Document # 72 - td (1/9/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 1/9/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 10/17/2019 (XX) - td (10/17/2019)
June 20, 2019
Joint status report not filed by June 13, 2019 pursuant to this court's order entered 4/25/19. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against each party for the failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
August 22, 2019
Joint status report not filed by August 8, 2019 pursuant to this court's order entered June 17, 2019. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against each
9:30 AM
party's attorney for the failure to do so.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
Debtor(s):
Team Business Solutions, Inc. Represented By
J Scott Williams
Defendant(s):
SNCR California, Inc., Represented By Michael G Spector
John Creamer Pro Se
Kirk Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01016 Marshack v. Nelson
FR: 4-11-19; 5-30-19; 9-12-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference is Continued to 1/9/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 10/17/2019 (XX) - td (10/17/2019)
April 11, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Joint status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
May 30, 2019
No tentative ruling -- trail matter to the 2:00pm calendar
Debtor(s):
Kirk M. Nelson Represented By
J Scott Williams
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Kirk M Nelson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By Robert P Goe
Thomas J Eastmond
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01136 Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Golden
FR: 10-3-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 12/19/2019 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 9/13/2019 (XX) - td (9/13/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Tung Phuong Nguyen-Phuc Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Jeffrey Golden Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Represented By
Lane K Bogard
Lisa Darling-Alderton
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Jerome Ringler Neil Macy Howard
9:30 AM
David Wood
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01006 Clemens v. US Dept of Education
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 2/6/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 10/25/2019 (XX) - td (10/25/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Carissa Louise Clemens Pro Se
Defendant(s):
US Dept of Education Represented By Elan S Levey
Plaintiff(s):
Carissa Clemens Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01168 Mitchell v. Nasiri et al
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) Entered 11/4/2019 - td (11/4/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Farhad Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Defendant(s):
Farhad Nasiri Pro Se
Renee C Nasiri Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee C Nasiri Represented By Renee Nasiri Don Emil Brand
Plaintiff(s):
Jacqueline Mitchell Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas R. Phinney
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01122 M.G.B. Construction, Inc. v. Duerscheidt
FR: 9-12-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to November 7, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at today's Status Conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
November 7, 2019
9:30 AM
Answer timely filed. Continue status conference to December 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by December 3, 2019.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Defendant(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
M.G.B. Construction, Inc. Represented By Scott A Kron
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01163 O'Gara Coach Company, LLC v. Ra
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Mar. 13, 2020 Deadline to File Summary Judgment Motion: Mar. 31, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: May 21, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: May 7, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Defendant(s):
Joseph Ra Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
O'Gara Coach Company, LLC Represented By Steven T Gubner
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01164 Laplant v. Ra
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: May 1, 2020 Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: June 15, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: July 23, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: July 9, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Defendant(s):
Joseph Ra Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Joseph Laplant Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Bret D Lewis
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01162 Becharoff Capital Corporation v. Rietveld
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: April 1, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: May 21, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: May 7, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Richard Allen Rietveld Represented By Alon Darvish
Defendant(s):
Richard Allen Rietveld Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Becharoff Capital Corporation Represented By Fritz J Firman
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01187 Legal Service Bureau Inc v. Miller et al
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: IN LIGHT OF GRANTING OF MOTION TO REMAND TO STATE (HEARING HELD ON OCT. 17, 2019) -- eas
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe Ryan S Riddles
Defendant(s):
Leslie Anne Miller Pro Se
Robert L Miller Pro Se
Orange County Bail Bonds Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Legal Service Bureau Inc Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Beom & Eun Investment LLC Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 63
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. §362 (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 10/31/2019 - td (10/31/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alfred Trejo Represented By
Michael G Spector
Joint Debtor(s):
Margaret F. Trejo Represented By Michael G Spector
Movant(s):
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, and Represented By
Christina J O
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 59
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant motion with waiver of Rule 4001(b)(3) Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Though there is an equity cushion of approximately $17,000, the monthly payments of $2,510.19 are unusually high and Debtor has made no postpetition payments. Presumably, the November 1 payment has not been made. Accordingly, the equity cushion will be completely depleted in less than 6 months.
The chapter 7 trustee has not objected to the Motion.
Objecting creditor Joseph Laplant's request for an order the requires distribution on account of his claimed lien is denied as being beyond the scope of a relief from stay order. To the extent that Laplant has a statutory lien (ORAP), he is certainly free to assert that claim to Movant.
Note: If Movant and Objecting Creditor accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Movant(s):
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Represented By Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
10:00 AM
ALICIA MARIE RICHARDS VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 202
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing Entered 10/2/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Movant(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A. AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2018 SC6 TITLE TRUST
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 47
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
William R Roman Jr. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Lorraine Stephanie Roman Pro Se
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Diane Weifenbach
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 31
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing Entered 10/24/2019 - td (10/24/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael Alan Kohn Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Kinecta Federal Credit Union Represented By
Erin M McCartney Mark S Krause
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS.
DEBTOR FR: 10-3-19
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
October 3, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to file declaration in support of Motion. (XX)
Pages 6-10 of the Motion are missing.
Note: If Movant accepts the tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a
10:00 AM
late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Claude Marian Dragomir Represented By Alaa A Ibrahim
Movant(s):
Kinecta Federal Credit Union Represented By Mark S Blackman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Luis Lazcano Represented By
Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Flora Lazcano Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Austin P Nagel
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Larry Allan Lindsay Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Joint Debtor(s):
Leticia Lindsay Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Movant(s):
First Tech Federal Credit Union Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Nichole Glowin
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Walaa Alrefai Represented By Daniel King
Movant(s):
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant motion without waiver of 4001(a)(3) unless Movant is willing to agree to a continuance of the hearing.
If the parties agree to a continuance, the parties may so indicate to the Clerk during the calendar roll call at 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing. Available continued dates (all at 10:00 a.m.): 11/21/19, 12/5/19, 12/12/19, 12/19/19, 1/9/20/ 1/16/20 and 1/30/20.
Debtor(s):
Timothy B Lovell Represented By Alisa Admiral
Joint Debtor(s):
Jeana M Lovell Represented By Alisa Admiral
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Nancy L Lee
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jose Gualberto Diaz Represented By
James Geoffrey Beirne
Movant(s):
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation Represented By
Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
JOE CRUZ, IRENE CRUZ VS.
DEBTOR FR: 10-10-19
Docket 6
NONE LISTED -
October 10, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to allow Movant to correct service issues: Debtor was not served at the mailing address indicated on the petition and the proof of service attached to the Motion is incomplete (no signature or date of service). (XX)
Tentative ruling for 11/7/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and annulment; deny relief request #5 (co-debtor stay doesn't apply in chapter 7 case), #s 7 and 9 (insufficient grounds for extraordinary prospective relief stated)
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required; Movant to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
10:00 AM
November 7, 2019
Service issue corrected. Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kimberlee F. Velt Represented By Joseph A Weber
Movant(s):
Joe Cruz Represented By
John J Lewis
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Karen Ann Richards Represented By Dianna M Heck
Movant(s):
First Tech Federal Credit Union Represented By Nichole Glowin
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; FARNAZ MIRDAMADI, NON-FILING CO-DEBTOR
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver; deny request for co-debtor relief (latter not applicable in chapter 7 cases).
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Kamran Mirdamadi Represented By Tom A Moore
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon FKA Represented By
Stephen T Hicklin
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 22
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and 362(d)(4) relief, except as to the currently pending case no. 19-11359 TA (relief from stay hearing and motion to sell hearing currently scheduled for 11/19/19 and 11/20/19 respectively.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jaime Dale Krueger Represented By Edward T Weber
Movant(s):
Wilmington Trust, National Represented By Robert P Zahradka
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
William H Waller Represented By Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra M Waller Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
William H Waller Represented By Christopher J Langley Christopher J Langley
Sandra M Waller Represented By Christopher J Langley
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
FR: 10-8-19
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
October 8, 2019
Service Issue:
Local Bankruptcy Rule 9075-1(a)(6) requires that an emergency motion must be filed by "email, fax or personal service" not later than the time the motion is filed with the court. The service declarations do not indicate that secured creditors were served by any method other than first class mail.
Court's Comments re the Substance of the Motion/Opposition:
Re the Budget (Exh. 1): what does the monthly $2000 expense for "postage and delivery" cover?
Re the Budget: Explanation of the monthly $5000 expense for legal and professional fees is required.
Re the Budget: Explanation for the monthly $1200 expense for repairs and maintenance is required. Repairs and maintenance of what?
Re the Budget: Will any of the cash collateral be used to
10:00 AM
pay salaries that became due prepetition?
Other than cash collateral, what are Debtor's assets?
Re the Opposition of MacArthur Village Homeowners Assn (HOA): While the HOA is entitled to maintain its third priority secured position on account of the ORAP (the court is well aware of the Hilde case), it is not clear what more, if anything, the HOA is seeking as adequate protection. The court does not believe that any payment is warranted at this time.
November 7, 2019
Comments re the Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Shelton in Support of Motion re Use of Cash Collateral:
Debtor needs to explain the dramatic budget increase for printing from
$1800 per year to $48,000 per year and why such costs are not recoverable from the various HOAs. Why was the initial budget so far off?
Debtor needs to explain the budget increase for storage from $2,088 per year to $4,800 per year. Why was the initial budget so far off?
What specifically is Debtor doing to decrease expenses?
Debtor(s):
Dove Real Estate & Association Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
Crystle Jane Lindsey
10:30 AM
Docket 70
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant the Motion filed on October 17, 2019 (Docket #70) and all relief requested therein: No later than December 16, 2019, Debtor must turnover to the trustee all items listed in Section 4(2)(a), (b), and (c) of the Motion (p.9) as well as the accounting requested in Section 4(3). By the same date, Debtor must also provide the trustee with the declarations of trust as to the Susan A. Doan Trust and the Silverado Land Trust. Deny without prejudice all additional relief requested in the Supplemental Declaration of D. Edward Hays in support of the Motion, filed October 24, 2019 as the request for such additional relief is untimely.
Special note: The trustee request that the court "specifically order the Debtor not to dissipate any funds." What funds? There is no basis for a blanket "injunction" as to undefined funds. And why hasn't the trustee set a 2004 examination to discover the scope and extent of potential property of the estate. The trustee appears to be endeavoring to substitute the motion for turnover with an actual investigation. In this same vein, the G Street matter noted in the supplemental pleading took place in March 2018 and should have been discovered well before the filing of the Motion.
Debtor(s):
Susan Doan Represented By
Gregory J Doan
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
10:30 AM
[KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 104
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael James Sumrall Sr. Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Rosanna Lynne Sumrall Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By William M Burd
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANTS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 101
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael James Sumrall Sr. Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Rosanna Lynne Sumrall Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By William M Burd
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. hrg. held 5/22/14)
FR: 11-20-14; 3-5-15; 9-10-15; 3-10-16; 9-8-16; 3-16-17; 9-21-17; 3-22-18;
3-29-18; 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19; 5-30-19; 9-12-19
Docket 209
NONE LISTED -
November 20, 2014
Continue status conference to March 5, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.,; updated status report to be filed by Feb 19, 2015. (XX)
Special note: The court would ordinarily continue the hearing 180 days. However, because of Debtor's failure to timely commence plan payments as to certain classes, the continued hearing will be heard sooner this time.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtors' responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 5, 2015
Continue status conference to September 10, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by August 27, 2015. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the
10:30 AM
UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 10, 2015
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 10, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by February 25, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
March 10, 2016
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 8, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 28, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 8, 2016
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 2, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
March 16, 2017 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 31, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
September 21, 2017
Comments:
The report re Class 6 appears to be a cut and paste from the Sixth Postconfirmation Status Report -- has Debtor made quarterly distributions in 2017?
Does Debtor intend to seek a final decree prior to 2024, notwithstanding that plan payments will continue until 2024?
March 29, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to October 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by September 27, 2018 (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well-
10:30 AM
prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
October 11, 2018
Updated postconfirmation status report not timely filed. Impose sanctions against Debtor's counsel in the amount of $100.00 for failure to timely file an updated status report.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed no later than March 7, 2019 and should specifically address 1) Debtor's employment status, and 2) the status of plan arrearages as to Class 2(c). (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements
March 21, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; An updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 and such report shall address the following: 1) the amount of arrears for each class that is not current as of May 1, 2019, and 2) the status of her employment. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
May 30, 2019
Continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 29, 2019. (XX)
Special note: The court is concerned about Debtor's continuing plan default as to Class 2(c).
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 12, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 24, 2019 (XX)
Special note: The court is concerned about Debtor's continuing plan default as to Class 2(c). If Debtor continues to fail to make payments to this creditor, absent a loan modification, the court will issue an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal immediately following the November 7, 2019 status conference.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
November 7, 2019
Continue Status Conference to December 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. The Court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should not Be Dismissed Due to Debtor's Continuing Inability to Comply With the Terms of the Confirmed Fourth Amended Plan. The hearing on the Order to Show
10:30 AM
Cause shall be set for December 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor has a history of not making plan payments as is reflected in several tentative ruling notations for prior status conferences (see above). In the current report, Debtor admits she is not current with plan payments as to Classes 2(c), 3(a), and 3(b). Debtor has not disclosed the amount of arrearages as to each such class (which this Court has requested for prior reports).
Debtor first states that she "has become unemployed," and then in the next sentence states that she "is employed but her employer has not paid her for work performed" since January 2019. No information is provided as to why the employer is not paying her, the amount owed, or why she expects to be paid retroactively for the past 10 months. See 13th Status Report at p. 4.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
Debtor(s):
Alma Theresa Tejadilla Reyes Represented By
Ivan M Lopez Ventura Jeffrey V Hernandez
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17; 8-31-17;
4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 6-20-19; 9-19-19; 10-3-19
Docket 73
NONE LISTED -
March 12, 2019
Continue status conference to April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date. Court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Should Not be Dismissed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction in light of the assignment of this adversary to Debtors pursuant to global settlement between Trustee and Debtors approved by the Court at hearing on January 31, 2019. The OSC hearing will also be held on April 11, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
Once the adversary proceeding is dismissed, Debtors will be free to initiate new litigation against the defendant in any nonbankruptcy court of competent jurisdiction.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
October 3, 2019
The court is withholding its substantive ruling on the Motion until the time of the hearing to allow the parties to first address at the following preliminary issue:
10:30 AM
In light of the assignment of the claims from the chapter 7 trustee to Plaintiffs and the fact the the administration of the bankruptcy estate is only impacted in the event of a recovery by Plaintiffs, why should this court not abstain on the following grounds under 28 USC 1334(c)(1):
Only state law claims are asserted;
No bankruptcy laws are implicated and none of the claims arise in the bankruptcy case and other than 28 U.S.C. 1334, there is no other federal jurisdiction;
There are multiple non-debtor parties
As indicated above, the impact on the administration of the estate is remote (i.e., recovery must be turned over to the estate)
Though this matter has been pending for approximately five years, it is still in the beginning stages , e.g., no discovery has been conducted.
November 7, 2019
Deny motion to dismiss. Defendants must file an answer to the amended complaint by or before December 12, 2019. The status conference will be continued to January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by January 16, 2020.
The court has closely reviewed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) in its entirety, as well as the Motion and the Opposition filed by Plaintiffs. The court finds that the complaint adequately pleads facts with sufficient particularity and plausibility to meet the pleading standards of FRCP Rule 8, Rule 9(b) and the Supreme Court's standards as set forth in the Twombly and Iqbal decisions.
Defendants' arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
As for abstention, the court has reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties
10:30 AM
and has decided not to abstain from adversary proceeding.
Finally, there is no standing issue in light of the assignment of the claims to Plaintiffs by the chapter 7 trustee.
Special note: There is a possibility that this adversary could be transferred to a recall judge for the pretrial conference and trial.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
10:30 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Movant(s):
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Plaintiff(s):
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith
10:30 AM
Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:14-01220 Lee et al v. Ciling et al
FR: 3-12-15; 4-7-15; 6-18-15; 8-18-15; 12-15-15; 4-14-16; 9-1-16; 6-22-17;
8-31-17; 4-12-18; 10-18-18; 12-13-18; 2-12-19; 3-12-19; 6-20-19; 9-19-19;
10-3-19
Docket 59
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
The status conference will be continued to January 30, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by January 16, 2020.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Defendant(s):
American Edge Medical Co. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Turko United LLC Pro Se
Nath Investments Inc. Represented By
10:30 AM
Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Medical Imaging Rentals, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
My Imaging Center LLC Pro Se
Lake Elsinore Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Temecula Diagnostic Center Inc. Pro Se
Anke Ciling Represented By
Marc C Forsythe
Sammy Ciling Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Fallbrook Diagnostics Inc. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Plaintiff(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Prime Partners Medical Group, Inc. Represented By
Norma Ann Dawson
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw
10:30 AM
Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur Cathy Ta
10:30 AM
(Set at Ch 11 Plan Hrg. Held 3-30-17) FR: 10-5-17; 4-5-18; 10-18-18; 4-11-19
Docket 399
NONE LISTED -
October 5, 2017
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 5, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 22, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
April 5, 2018
Continue postconfirmation status conference to October 18, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 4, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
October 18, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
10:30 AM
Continue postconfirmation status conference to April 11, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 28, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading. The postconfirmation status report [docket #559] qualifies for a Gold Star designation.
April 11, 2019
Continue post-confirmation hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 24, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
November 7, 2019
Continue post-confirmation hearing to May 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by April 23, 2020 if a final decree has not been entered by such date.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the US Trustee in advance of the hearing.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Tamar Terzian Alan G Tippie
10:30 AM
[JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 172
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
[THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS H. CASEY, ATTORNEY FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE JEFFREY I. GOLDEN]
Docket 171
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, LLP, ACCOUNTANTS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 169
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
Docket 171
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Debtor has filed non-opposition to the OSC. Dismiss case.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
J. Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
FR: 8-17-17; 11-16-17; 2-1-18; 5-24-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-13-18;
4-18-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19; 9-19-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
August 17, 2017
Claims Bar Date: Oct. 23, 2017 (notice by 8/21/17)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl. Stmt: Nov. 1, 2017
Continued Status Conference: Nov. 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated
by 11/2/17 stmt has been case the no filed and the
be continued to stmt hearing. (XX)
status report to be filed unless the plan/discl. timely filed, in which status report need be status conference will the date of the discl.
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling and is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of the Debtor to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
November 16, 2017
Continue status conference to February 1, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. Updated status report must be filed by January 18, 2018 unless a timely filed disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of a status report will be waived. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
February 1, 2018
Continue status conference to May 24, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed no later than May 10, 2018, unless a plan and disclosure statement has been filed by such date, in which case the requirement of an updated report will not be required. Extend deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement to May 1, 2018. No further continuances will be granted. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
May 31, 2018
Continue chapter 11 status conference to July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; the
10:30 AM
court shall issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or converted due to Debtor's inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization or file a disclosure statement. The hearing on the OSC shall also be held on July 19, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This court previously indicated that no further extensions of the deadline to file a plan and disclosure statement beyond May 1, 2018 would be granted. Debtor and its counsel apparently view the court's deadlines as mere suggestions. Nothing in Debtor's current status report justifies any further extensions. Debtor has basically "parked" itself for approximately one year in this noncomplex chapter 11 case and cavalierly intends to remained parked for at least 17 months without filing a plan and disclosure statement. This will not happen.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
July 19, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 6, 2018. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
September 20, 2018
This case has now been pending for more than a year. The status reports continue to sing the same tune about reaching a resolution with the IRS but virtually no progress has been made since the last status conference. Time is up. If a stipulation is not reached with the IRS or an adversary filed by October 15, 2018, the case will be dismissed. Given the number of
10:30 AM
continuances and time that has been granted to Debtor and the IRS with no results, the court no longer sees the need to set an Order To Show Cause re Dismissal. The case will simply be dismissed on October 16, 2018 absent a filed stipulation or adversary proceeding due to inability to timely propose a plan of reorganization.
December 13, 2018
Dismiss case due to inability of Debtor to propose a plan of reorganization. The case has been pending for 18 months without the filing of a plan and disclosure statement as previously ordered by the court. The incorporates its comments set forth in its September 20, 2018 tentative ruling (see above).
April 18, 2019
Dismiss case.
This case has now been pending for nearly two years with no contemplated plan of reorganization. Debtor wishes to continue to prop up this empty case up for the sole purpose of executing an agreement with an apparently reluctant IRS. The IRS apparently seems to have no sense of urgency regarding this case. Counsel for the IRS represented to the court on November 13, 2018 that approval from D.C. of the settlement should be obtained within 60-90 days. However, five months later, there is no approval in sight. Debtor will need to resolve its issues with the IRS outside bankruptcy.
June 20, 2019
In light of status report filed on 6/13/19 confirming approval of Debtor's settlement with the IRS by the Dept. of Justice [docket #144], continue this status conference to July 18, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by or before July 11, 2019 if a stipulation between Debtor and the government has not been filed by such date. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
July 18, 2019
In light of the finalization of the settlement with the IRS, continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status conference report must be filed by September 5, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing
September 19, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed due to lack of necessity for reorganization on notice to all creditors. The OSC hearing shall be set for the same date/time. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
November 7, 2019
Off calendar in light of dismissal of the case.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
C.B.S.A. Family Partnership Represented By
10:30 AM
Jerome Bennett Friedman
10:30 AM
Docket 94
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Maryam Teimoori Represented By
James D. Hornbuckle
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01039 Chokshi v. Malhotra et al
Docket 16
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 11/21/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 11/4/2019 (XX) - td (11/4/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Raj Malhotra Represented By
Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Raj Malhotra Represented By
Leslie K Kaufman
Nayana Malhotra Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Leslie Keith Law offices of Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Nayana Malhotra Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Plaintiff(s):
Manisha Chokshi Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Onyinye N Anyama Vithlani Dilip
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19; 6-13-19; 9-12-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on UST's motion to dismiss case. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
June 13, 2019
Claims Bar Date: 8/22/19 (notice to creditors by 6/20/19)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: 8/29/19 (no extensions will be granted)
Continued Status Conf: 9/12/19 at 10:30 a.m. (XX)
Updated Status Report due: 8/29/19 -- waived if Plan/DS timely filed
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this status conference are not required -- the court will issue its own
10:30 AM
order re the same.
September 12, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to notice a hearing date on approval of its Disclosure Statement. (XX)
Special Note: This court does not set hearings on approval of disclosure statements. Counsel for the debtor must self-calendar hearings.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee. It is Debtor's responsibility to ascertain its compliance status prior to the hearing.
November 7, 2019
Continue status conference to December 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing re approval of first amended disclosure statement. Updated status report not required.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01108 Pipitone v. Choice Motor Credit, LLC
Docket 32
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Defendant(s):
Choice Motor Credit, LLC Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 10-17-19
Docket 47
- NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on approval of Debtor's amended disclosure statement and Debtor's motion to sell real property. (XX)
Tentative ruling for 11/7/19 hearing: Dismiss case or convert case to chapter 7 if amended disclosure statement is not approved and/or the motion to sell is denied.
Special Note: The court is very concerned about the viability of a reorganization plan. As the sale of the Norwalk property is likely to net less than $9,000, Debtor must present proof that the other rental properties generate positive cash flow and provide a source of plan funding. Further, as the proposed sale is to an insider, Debtor must provide objective evidence of the fair market value of the Norwalk property.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsiblity to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
November 7, 2019
The court is inclined to grant the motion to dismiss in light of the fact that likelihood that Debtor can confirm a plan is slim to nil given the following circumstances: 1) reorganization hinges in significant part on the ability to sell the Norwalk property to the principal's son who has been occupying the property rent-free for several months and has no known ability to purchase the same; 2) Debtor has little to no equity in the three properties it owns and has been unable to make any postpetition monthly payments to secured creditors during the pendency of the case; 3) has very little income and what income it does generate is insufficient to make payments proposed under its plan; and 4) the plan requires a minimum $25,000 contribution by Debtor's principal from undisclosed sources.
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
Docket 60
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Deny motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Failure to comply with LBR 6004-1(f) -- mandatory notice of sale of estate property must be submitted to the Clerk at the time of filing of the sale motion on form F6004-2 NOTICE.SALE for publication on the court's website.
Insider sales are subject to “heightened scrutiny to the fairness of the value provided by the sale and the good faith of the parties in executing the transaction.” In re Roussos, 541 B.R. 721, 730 (Bankr.C.D.Cal. 2015); In re Family Christian, LLC, 533 B.R. 600, 622 (Bankr.W.D.Mich.2015).
Here, the property is being sold to the son of Debtor's principal and, therefore, the sale is subject to heightened scrutiny not only as to the value the sale but the good faith of Debtor and the buyer. Notably, neither the Motion or the principal's declaration in support of the Motion discloses the familial relationship between buyer and seller. Several additional concerns are evident:
The buyer/son has "rented" the property for some time but has not consistently paid rent. Indeed, he failed pay rent for several months following
10:30 AM
the commencement of the case. This circumstance calls into question his ability to consummate an "above-market" purchase of $575,000.
Although the escrow documents signed in July 2019 required a
$2,000 deposit into escrow (or less than .5% of the purchase price), supplemental escrow instructions signed in September 2019 reduced the deposit to only $500, at a time when he was not paying rent to the estate. No explanation for the relaxing of the deposit requirement is offered.
No prequalification financing documents or any other financial documents showing the buyer/son's ability to consummate the sale have been presented.
Debtor did not post the sale to the court's website or provide for overbidding, thereby ensuring that the principal's son would be the only "game in town." Debtor's principal's "belief" that there are no other buyers willing to pay $10,000 over the appraised value is unpersuasive and defies this court's 25 years of experience in 363 sales.
In light of all of the foregoing circumstances, the court cannot find that the buyer is a good faith purchaser.
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
FR: 9-5-19
Docket 40
- NONE LISTED -
September 5, 2019
Continue hearing to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to correct service issue and file amended disclosure statement no later than September 26, 2019. (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service:
Service is untimely under FRBP 2002(b) and LBR 3017 -- 28 days notice of time to file objection to disclosure statement. As objections are due 14 days prior to the hearing, a total of 42 days' notice is required. Here, only 36 days' notice was given.
Creditors were not noticed with the deadline for filing objections to approval of the disclosure statement. See Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Approving Disclosure Statement.
It would be wise for Debtor to serve secured creditors per 7004(b) in light of Debtor's unconventional plan treatment as to certain secured creditors.
Merits:
10:30 AM
Debtor shall use non-military dates, e.g., January 4, 2017 and not 4 January 2017. All dates in the disclosure statement must be so corrected.
Under Section II.A., there shall be separate headings for each property and its estimated value, e.g., 1. 1210 Alta Vista Drive, Bakersfield, California ("Alta Vista Property") - Estimated Fair Market Value: $90,000. As currently, drafted, it is very difficult to follow the discussion of each property and liens against each.
There is an inconsistency in the DS re the third position lien of Medeiros Charitable Remainder Trust ("Medeiros"). This lien secures debt of
$31,166.68 and is cross-collateralized by both the Burchfield and Norwalk Properties (3rd position lien on both properties). On page 9 of the DS, Debtor also mentions a fourth position lien on the Burchfield property, that of the Georgia M Bank Living Trust ("Georgia M"). However, though Medeiros has a recorded 3rd position lien on the Burchfield property, such lien is not treated at all under the plan. Instead, the Georgia M lien is elevated from 4th to 3rd position. See DS at p. 27. Even though Medeiros is cross-collateralized, the court is unaware of any legal basis for "stripping" a valid lien under these circumstances.
Though there are at least two undersecured creditors -- Medeiros as to the Burchfield property and Real Estate Services, Inc. ("RES") as to the Alta Vista property, there is no mention of 11 U.S.C. 1111(b)(1)(A) and 1111(b)(2) and the rights of such undersecured creditors to make an 1111(b) election, not to mention the impact such an election would have on the feasibility of Debtor's plan.
Page 11: At line 8, the "principal of the business" should be modified to the "principal of the Debtor."
Page 13: At paragraph 4, Debtor should simply state that it is seeking to sell the Burchfield and Norwalk properties. In fact, every reference in the DS to "liquidating" properties should be changed to "selling" properties. The language in the DS is unnecessarily cumbersome.
10:30 AM
Page 16: As the LA County Tax Assessor has filed a proof of claim asserting a secured claim, it should be treated as a secured creditor and not a priority creditor under the plan. Also, there is a small typo re the Kern County tax claim -- should be $1,032.09 instead of $1.032.09. Same typo appears in the plan at p. 7.
Page 26: At lines 21-22, "$075.00" needs to be changed to "$75.00". Same in plan at p. 17.
Page 27: Class 2G -- this is the curious treatment of Georgia M as a third priority lienholder on the Burchfield property when Medeiros actually holds this position.
At various places in the DS, e.g., the treatment of Classes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, etc., provide that if the particular property is not liquidated (sold) within 12 months of the effective date, the affected secured creditor can proceed with foreclosure under state law but no deficiency will be permitted against "the Debtor or its affiliates." Who are Debtor's "affiliates?"
Page 34: Line 20 reads "Debtor is a real estate professional (broker?) and capable of handling the sale itself". However, Debtor is described earlier in the the DS as merely a holding company. Is it Debtor's principal who is the real estate professional? Also, the DS should disclose that the Norwalk sale is scheduled to close this month (per the purchase agreement). Is that likely to happen? The court is not aware of any pending motion to sell.
Page 35: The representation regarding Debtor as a real estate professional is repeated. Needs to be corrected if not true.
Page 35: Debtor projects that the sale of the Burchfield property will net
$126,100 based upon a value of $130,000 and. Further, the $126,100 plus an additional $22,445 of "added value" funds from Debtor's principal will pay the property tax claim of $1,032.09, and Classes 2E, 2F and 2G* in full.
However, the math does not work. $126,100 + 22,445 = $148,545.
$1,032.09 + 95,000 + 15,000 + $37,500 = $148,545 PLUS $832 x 4 mos
($3,328) = $151,873. According to the DS, the amounts owed to Classes 2E, 2F and 2G were as of March 16, 2019. According to Debtor's most recent
10:30 AM
MOR, three postpetition payments to Lendinghome ($832/mo) were not made as of July 2019. Presumably, no payment was made in August either.
Accordingly, as of August, total postpetition payments owed to Lendinghome was $3,329.00. This number increases each month that payments are not made and a plan is not confirmed.
*The DS at p. 35, Line 13 erroneously refers to 2D instead of 2G.
Where will the funds come from to enable Debtor's principal to make the
$25,000 added value payment?
November 7, 2019
Comments re the First Amended Disclosure Statement:
The feasibility issue identified by the court re the Burchfield property in comment #13 to the original disclosure statement has not been addressed. See tentative ruling above for September 5, 2019 hearing. See also the objection of LendingHome Marketplace at p. 4 regarding the lack of equity to pay all secured debt.
Although feasibility is normally a confirmation matter, because of Debtor's substantial monthly debt service obligations (even with interest only payments) and razor-thin revenues, disclosure of the source of funds to make the proposed plan payments over the first 12-month term of the plan is critical. In particular, the source of funds for the principal's "value added" payment of $25,000+ needs to be disclosed.
Debtor needs to address the feasibility issue raised by RESG in its opposition at p. 3, lines 5-26. $5,348.11 in monthly plan obligations during the first 12 months vs. $2300 in income.
The bottom line is this case involves a debtor with three properties with little to no equity who has insufficient income to fund a plan of reorganization.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
FR:5-16-19; 7-16-19; 9-5-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Debtor's counsel will need to address the following issues:
The projected adequate protection payments listed on Exhibit A requires explanation:
The projection provides for monthly adequate protection payments for all three properties of only $1700, yet the debt service on the Norwalk property alone is $3300 per month (1st and 2nd).
The artificially low adequate protection payments skews the projections -- in reality, Debtor will be operating at a significant deficit for all 6 months, especially after property taxes, insurance, maintenance and management fees are added.
It is not clear from the projections whether Debtor is paying $100 in management fees per month for one, two or all three properties. Who is the property manager?
The projections include rent for the Burchfield property of $1300 but there is no evidence that Debtor has procured a tenant for that property.
10:30 AM
The monthly operating report for March shows no income and no expenses for any property.
Debtor does not plan to file a cash collateral motion. So, how will the projected expenses for the properties be paid?
Claims Bar Date: July 30, 2019 (notice to creditors by 5/30/19;
declaration re non-opp must be
filed by 5/23)
Deadline to file Plan/Discl St.: Aug. 1, 2019
Continued status conference: July 16, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated report
must be filed by July 9. 2019.
Special Note: The continued chapter 11 status conference is being continued less than 60 days to allow the court to monitor the progress of this case, including a review of the April and May MORs.
Note: Appearance at this status conference is required.
July 16, 2019
The updated status report filed in 7/9/19 does not address the following issues:
Debtor indicated at the 5/16/19 hearing that an inside buyer would be purchasing the Norwalk property and that a motion to sell would be filed within 30 days of the hearing, i.e., June 16, 2019. To date, no such motion has been filed.
Debtor represents that no cash collateral is being used -- so how are the properties being maintained? Landscaping? Property management fees?
10:30 AM
What was the source of the payment of $674 for office supplies?
Debtor represents that two of the properties generate monthly combined income of $3450 per month. However, the most recent MOR shows income of only $3214.
Why does the Burchfield property remain unrented after four months?
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
September 5, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as the continued hearing re approval of the Disclosure Statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
November 7, 2019
No tentative ruling -- disposition will depend upon the outcome in other matters on today's calendar.
Debtor(s):
Royal Express Processing Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
Docket 206
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing Entered 10/2/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 28
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Sustain in part; Overrule in part. Sustain only as to the secured status of post-judgment HOA assessments, late fees, costs, attorneys fees and other charges. Overrule as to 1) any objection to the amount of the claim and 2) any objection to the secured status of the damages covered by the recorded judgments, including accrued interest.
Debtor(s):
Shauna Barnhardt Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Frank Albert Villar Jr. Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Movant(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 54
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant the Motion as modified, i.e., extend the plan filing exclusivity period for sixty (60) days from October 21, 2019 to December 20, 2020; and the acceptance exclusivity period for one hundred and twenty (120) days from December 20, 2019 to February 18, 2020.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe Ryan S Riddles
10:30 AM
(2) Requiring Report on Status of Chapter 11 Case FR: 8-22-19; 10-17-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
August 22, 2019
Deadline to file Plan and Disclosure Statement: 10/21/19 Continued Status Conference Date: 11/21/19 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report due date: 11/7/19 unless a plan & DS
filed, in which case requirement of a report will
have been the
be waived.
Special Note: The court does not ordinarily set a deadline for the filing of objections to claim.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
10:30 AM
October 17, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on Debtor's motion to extend exclusivity. Updated status report not required. (XX)
November 7, 2019
Deadline to file plan/disclosure statement: Dec. 20, 2019
Continued status conference: Jan. 30, 2020 at 10:30 am Updated status report due (only if plan &
DS not timely filed by 12/20/19): Jan. 16, 2020
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the United States Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm compliance with the UST prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
10:30 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019 Convert case to chapter 7. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
On September 18, 2019 this court issued its order scheduling this chapter 11 status conference and ordering Debtor to file a status report no later than October 24, 2019 (Docket #36). As of November 6, 2019 no status report has been filed.
The September 18 Order provides in part that "failure to timely comply with any provision of this order may be deemed consent to the conversion or dismissal of this case "
According to Debtor's Schedule D, Debtor may have $500,000 in equity in its real property. Debtor's schedules also show nonpriority unsecured debt of approximately $700,000. Based upon such representations, conversion to chapter 7 would appear to be more appropriate than dismissal of the case.
Debtor(s):
Limonite Investments LLC Represented By Stephen F Lopez
2:00 PM
20-2]
Docket 586
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Preliminary Statement: The court appreciates the efforts made by the parties, in particular Debtor and his counsel, in attempting to resolve this claim without court intervention. Indeed, Debtor has track record in this case of attempting to resolve disputes, often with success. The court has spent a significant amount of time reviewing the pleadings of the parties as well as the various exhibits presented.
Tentative Ruling: Sustain the objection as to the sum of $30,144.18 for foreclosure fees; overrule as to the balance of the objection.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
After careful analysis and review, except as otherwise noted below, the court agrees with the Claimant as to the following matters and incorporates its analysis by reference herein:
Tender: The court agrees that the tender made by Debtor was not a valid tender under CC 1486 and 1500 in that it was not in the full amount demanded by Claimant and was not deposited into an account in the name of Claimant that was unconditionally available to Claimant.
Foreclosure Fees:
2:00 PM
Claimant directs the court to the language in the Fictitious Deed of Trust for the the County of Orange attached to Claimant's RJN, Exhibit 5, which document purports to include a provision for payment of "all costs and expenses, including the cost of evidence of title and attorney's fees in a reasonable sum in any . . . action . . . to foreclose this Deed." Exhibit 5 to the RJN, however, is illegible. Accordingly, as the document is not readable, the court will not recognize it as a basis for the foreclosure fees. As Claimant has had ample time to provide a legible record, the hearing will not be continued to allow substitute documents.
Attorneys Fees:
The Forebearance and Subordination Agreement dated January 10, 2014 provides a sufficient basis for attorneys fees (but not foreclosure fees). The court finds that the attorneys fees have been sufficiently documented and do not appear to be unreasonable. Further, contractual or statutory attorneys fees and costs are allowable under Section 506(b) as to oversecured creditors.
Calculation of Interest:
The court agrees the interest is appropriately calculated in the manner set forth in the state court in its March 2, 2019 judgment.
Application of Payments:
The court agrees with Claimant that the Forebearance and Subordination Agreement sets forth the order for application of payments (costs, then attorneys fees, then interest, then principal) and that given the order and amount of payments, no interest was calculated on the attorneys fees portion of the claim.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By
2:00 PM
Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01188 Jones v. Haythorne
FR: 11-3-16; 4-13-17; 5-11-17; 6-15-17; 10-19-17; 12-14-17; 3-22-18; 3-29-18;
5-31-18; 7-19-18; 10-18-18; 12-20-18; 3-21-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 11/19/19 at 9:30 a.m. on Court's Own Motion; See Court's Notice filed 6/5/19, Document #72 (XX) - td (6/5/2019)
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Jones Represented By Richard A Jones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 12/5/2019 at 10:30 a.m, Per Order Entered 11/12/2019 (XX) - td (11/12/2019)
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01188 Jones v. Haythorne
FR: 11-3-16; 4-13-17; 5-11-17; 6-15-17; 10-19-17; 12-14-17; 3-22-18; 3-29-18;
5-31-18; 7-19-18; 10-18-18; 12-20-18; 3-21-19; 11-14-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 2/6/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 11/8/2019 (XX) - td (11/8/2019)
November 3, 2016
Discovery Cut-off Date: 2/15/17
Pretrial Conference Date: 4/13/17 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: 3/30/17
Deadline for Plaintiff to file Brief With Legal Authority/Analysis re Asserted Right
to a Jury Trial 3/30/17
Special Note: Paragraph 14 of the Complaint refers to an alleged violation of "Section 828(a)(2) . . . of Title 11 of the United States Code." There is no Section 828 in the Bankruptcy Code.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
April 13, 2017
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 as to Plaintiff's and Defendant's counsel for failure to timely file a joint pretrial stipulation. The court further notes that Plaintiff did not file a brief in support of his alleged right to a jury trial and the court assumes Plaintiff is no longer demanding a jury trial.
Plaintiff's counsel filed a late unilateral pretrial statement on April 11, 2017 but does not include a declaration stating why a joint pretrial stipulation was not filed -- Defendant's counsel did not sign off on the statement filed on April 11, 2017. Instead the declaration appears to be an improper "motion" to re-open discovery. Such a request can only be made by a properly noticed motion pursuant to LBR 9013-1.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
May 11, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to June 15, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on pending motion to re-open discovery. (XX)
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
Though Section III (Issues of Law) refers to 523(a)(2)(A), Section II (Disputed Facts) of the JPS does not reference 523(a)(2)(A) or any disputed facts relevant to the elements of fraud.
Though Section refers to disputed facts relevant to 523(a)(6), Section III does not refer to issues of law re 523(a)(6).
The court does not understand the issue of law implicated by Section III(2) of the JPS.
Paragraph 9 of the Complaint refers to 523(a)(2)(B) but there is no reference to 523(a)(2)(B) in the JPS. Has this basis for nondischargeability
9:30 AM
been abandoned by Plaintiff?
Disputed facts relevant to the elements of slander per se are not set forth in the JPS.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required. Though an amended JPS is not required for the 6/15/17 hearing, the parties are advised to heed the court's comments re the JPS for purposes of any amended JPS filed in the future.
June 15, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to October 19, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.; amended joint pretrial stipulation must be filed by October 5, 2017. (XX)
In preparing the joint pretrial stipulation, the parties should take in to consideration the court's comments above re the May 11, 2017 hearing.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
October 19, 2017
No tentative ruling as disposition will depend upon the outcome of the Motion to Compel set on today's 10:30 a.m. calendar. This matter will be trailed to the 10:30 a.m. calendar.
December 14, 2017
Continue pretrial conference to March 22, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; final version of pretrial stipulation must be filed by March 8, 2018. Deadline for filing pre-trial motions is January 18, 2018. February 22, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. shall be
9:30 AM
reserved for such motions. Pretrial motions not filed by January 18, 2018 will be deemed waived. (XX)
Comments re the Amended JPS filed 12/1/17:
Section II(2) should be modified to add "in a writing" after the phrase "misrepresented his financial condition."
All references to "Section 523(a)(b) shall be revised to correctly identify the statutes as 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(B).
Typos in Section II(16), line 11 ("filing") and Section III(2) ("Plaintiff") should be corrected.
The 12/1/17 version of the JPS does not include the list of witnesses and exhibits as represented therein.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
March 29, 2018
The separately filed pretrial stipulations are both deficient and do not address issues previously identified by the court. The parties will be allowed one final opportunity to file a proper joint pretrial statement and severe monetary sanctions of not less than $1000 will beimposed on the party who has not participated in the preparation of the final pretrial statement in good faith and in a timely manner.
If the parties cannot agree that a particular fact is undisputed, then it automatically goes into the disputed section of the statement -- one side cannot unilaterally decide that a disputed matter is undisputed.
The parties will be required to meet in person to work on the joint pretrial statement and should be thinking about a time/place to do so prior to today's hearing.
9:30 AM
Comments re the Unilateral Pretrial Statements:
The sender and receiver of the wired funds of $232,557.66 should not be a disputed matter. For example, if wire documents indicate that Defendant was the sender, then Defendant should not be disputing that fact. If on the other hand, the sender of the wire was Gadzinski V in N Out Fund ("Gadzinski Fund"), then Plaintiff should include that fact as undisputed. Same the the identity of the recipient -- Plaintiff or Stellar Capital, Inc. ("Stellar")
The relationship between Defendant and Gadzinski Fund, if any, should be set forth as either a undisputed or disputed fact. Same re the relationship, if any, between Stellar and/or Plaintiff or Defendant.
The fact that a check in the amount of $5,000 was paid on November 17, 2014 appears to be undisputed. Is there a dispute that the check was drawn on the account of Salt Creek Realty, Inc? What is the relationship, if any, between Salt Creek and Defendant?
Re Plaintiff's Sections I(I) and (J), what is the relevance of the rental to the 523 and 727 claims? If it has no bearing on such claims, it should be deleted.
Re Plaintiff's Sections I(L) - (V) -- why are these facts relevant to the 523 and 727 claims? If they have no bearing on such claims, they should be deleted.
The parties to the alleged agreement and the terms thereof appear to be in dispute and should be listed in the joint pretrial statement as a facts in dispute.
Re whether Defendant misrepresented his financial condition, both parties have failed to include the necessary requirement under 523(a)(2)(B) that such misrepresentation be in writing. The court has previously pointed out this deficiency. If there is no writing, then the 523(a)(2)(B) claim must be dismissed as a matter of law.
The reference in both pretrial statements to "523(a)(2)(A)(B)" is facially defective as no such statute exists. It is either 523(a)(2)(A) or 523(a)(2)(B).
9:30 AM
No facts relating to 523(a)(2)(A) are set forth in either pretrial statement. If there are no such facts, this claim should be dismissed as a matter of law.
Certain elements of fraud are missing from the issues of fact/law, e.g., intent to deceive, damages as a result of reliance on misrepresentations.
What is the relevance of Plaintiff contacting Defendant's parents for repayment to either the 523 or 727 claims? If not relevant, it should be deleted.
Re Plaintiff's Section II(15) -- a time frame needs to be added that is consistent with the applicable 727 subsection. Same re Section II(16). Plaintiff appears have lumped several allegations together without any time frames that fall within the applicable 727 subsection.
Plaintiff's Exhibits: re "Wells Fargo Documents:" need to better identify the documents. Are they bank statements or something else? Re "letters" and "emails" -- need to identify sender/recipient re each, such as Defendant has done in his exhibit list.
Re Plaintiff's Witness List: Re witness #s 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 -- there is no indication of the time period. for example, David Williams will be testifying about a commission paid to Defendant when? "When" makes a difference of purposes of whether the transaction should have been listed on Defendant's schedules or statement of financial affairs.
Special Note: Over the course of this adversary, this court has spend hours correcting issues on what should have been a straightforward joint pretrial statement. The court is concerned that the parties are not being thoughtful in the preparation of the pretrial statement. For example the court cannot even determine whether there are any facts to be litigated under 523(a)(2)(A) or 523(a)(2)(B) based on what currently appears in Plaintiff's pretrial statement.
Note: Appearances at this pretrial conference are MANDATORY.
July 19, 2018
9:30 AM
No tentative ruling; disposition will depend upon outcome of other motions on for hearing this date.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Jones Represented By Richard A Jones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01037 Last Chance Funding, Inc. v. Mohan et al
FR: 5-30-19; 10-17-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 28, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Apr. 9, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Mar. 26, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Narendra Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
Defendant(s):
Narendra Mohan Pro Se
Anshu Mohan Pro Se
9:30 AM
Joint Debtor(s):
Anshu Mohan Represented By Harlene Miller
Plaintiff(s):
Last Chance Funding, Inc. Represented By Robert L Rentto
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Involuntary Chapter 7 Petition Entered 10/3/2019 - td (10/3/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Beom & Eun Investment LLC Pro Se
10:00 AM
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 9-19-19; 10-17-19
Docket 80
NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Grant motion with without 4001(a)(3) waiver and with co-debtor relief.
Special Note: The tentative ruling is to grant the Motion because Debtor did not provide documentary proof of payments he alleges to have made. If Movant is agreeable to a continuance to discuss a resolution, the parties may request a continuance of the hearing at the beginning of the calendar roll call. Available dates are Oct. 10, Oct. 17 and Nov. 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
October 17, 2019
Parties to advise of status of matter.
10:00 AM
November 19, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Ranulfo Figueroa Represented By Sunita N Sood Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Mark T. Domeyer Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. VS.
DEBTOR FR: 10-17-19
Docket 56
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor stay relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
November 19, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Linda Anne Boyer Represented By
Ramiro Flores Munoz
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Represented By
April Harriott Keith Labell Theron S Covey Eric P Enciso Sean C Ferry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTOR FR: 10-17-19
Docket 71
NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
November 19, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Daryl John Parks Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC. VS.
DEBTOR FR: 10-17-19
Docket 70
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 11/4/2019 - td (11/4/2019)
October 17, 2019
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) relief unless Debtor is postpetition current prior to the hearing or the parties have agreed to the terms of an adequate protection order. If more time is needed to finalize an adequate protection agreement, the parties may request a continuance during the the roll call of the calendar just prior to the hearing. Available continued hearing dates: Nov. 7, 2019, Nov. 19, 2019 or Nov. 21, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Broker Solutions, Inc. dba New Represented By Christina J O
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT LOANS, INC., MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-QO5
VS. DEBTORS FR: 10-10-19
Docket 42
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 11/4/2019 - td (11/4/2019)
October 10, 2019
Grant motion with 4001(a)(3) waiver unless the parties have negotiated a resolution -- if more time is needed, a request for a continuance may be made during the calendar roll call at the beginning of the hearing. Available continued hearing dates: Nov. 7 or Nov, 14, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST Represented By
Dane W Exnowski Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
[RE: 2017 INFINITI QX60]
NISSAN-INFINITI LT VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 61
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. §362 (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 11/13/2019 - td (11/13/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Movant(s):
NISSAN-INFINITI LT. Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
10:00 AM
[RE: 2018 INFINITI Q50] NISSAN-INFINITI LT VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 62
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. §362 (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 11/13/2019 - td (11/13/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Movant(s):
NISSAN-INFINITI LT. Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
10:00 AM
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 39
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and codebtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Sonny Pai Represented By
Anthony B Vigil
Movant(s):
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC Represented By
Jennifer H Wang Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Paul D Blanco Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Movant(s):
ADVANTAGE FUNDING Represented By
Raffi Khatchadourian
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Tien Ngoc Ho Represented By Kevin Tang
Joint Debtor(s):
Trinh Nguyen Represented By Kevin Tang
Movant(s):
Financial Services Vehicle Trust Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Cheryl A Skigin
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 31
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver, co-debtor relief and 362(d)(4) extraordinary relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jaime Dale Krueger Represented By Edward T Weber
Movant(s):
PSG Capital Partners, Inc. Represented By Julian K Bach
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Margaret Ann Lindsay Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Movant(s):
Daimler Trust Represented By
Sheryl K Ith
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
(RE: 2016 Nissan Quest)
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Martha E Metz Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Movant(s):
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(RE: 2018 Nissan Sentra)
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Martha E Metz Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Movant(s):
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
(RE: 2018 Nissan Rogue)
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Martha E Metz Represented By
Michael H Colmenares
Movant(s):
NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE Represented By
Michael D Vanlochem
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; AND WENETA M. KOSMALA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Claudia Jose Juarez Represented By Marjan Alitalaei
Movant(s):
HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
(OST ENTERED 11/12/2019)
JAZMIN PETRUCHIK VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant the motion with all relief requested therein.
Debtor(s):
Steven Ray Douglas Pro Se
Movant(s):
Jazmin Petruchik Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 40
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
The court is inclined to reduce the amount of the sanction award by
$6,232.77 to extract the amount of fees clearly dedicated to the motion to amend the complaint and to issue an amended judgment in the amount of
$16,085.98
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Movant does not dispute that portion of the court's October 1, 2019 Order finding that Movant violated Debtors' discharge injunction by filing and prosecuting the breach of contract complaint ("Original Complaint") six years after learning of the bankruptcy.
Movant takes issue with the award of $22,318.75, arguing that the entirety of that amount was spent litigating the first amended complaint ("FAC") which only asserted intentional torts and not breach of contract. More specifically, Movant contends that the $22,318 award is "disproportionate as a sanction because it has no rational connection to the damages incurred" as Movant's motion for leave to file the FAC was filed on November 15, 2019 before Debtors hired an attorney. Movant suggests that a more appropriate sanction amount would be $5,000 but provides no rational basis for the amount.
FRBP 9023 incorporates, with exceptions not applicable here, FRCP
10:30 AM
59(e). In determining whether to alter or amend an order or judgment under this Rule, courts consider 1) whether the order was based upon manifest errors of law or fact; 2) whether there is newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) amendment is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, and 4) whether there is an intervening change in the controlling law. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999). The analysis under Rule 60(b) is not substantively different.
The court disagrees that the "entirety" of the fees charged from November 15, 2018 to May 7, 2019 related to the FAC. A substantial amount of fees were charged to Debtors motion for judgment on the pleadings which, by definition, must have related to the Original Complaint because the motion for leave to file the FAC was not decided until May 7, 2019. Similarly, fees relating to depositions and the motion(s) to compel necessarily related to the operate pleading prior to May 7, 2019, i.e., the Original Complaint.
Movant did not provide any basis for the suggested reduced sanction amount of $5,000 and no reference to Debtors' counsel's time records is made as a basis for such suggestion. In this regard, the court has gone through the time records and determined that the fees actually relating to the motion for leave to amend and jurisdictional issues raised thereto total
$6,232.77, resulting a reduced judgment of $16,085.98
Debtor(s):
Kosta M Majdalani Represented By Parisa Fishback David Brian Lally
Joint Debtor(s):
Therese J Majdalani Represented By Parisa Fishback David Brian Lally
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:13-01220 Bobinski v. Savastano
FR: 9-12-19
Docket 175
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation to Continue the Examination of Third Party Guadalupe Savastano filed 11/15/2019; Order on Stipulation Lodged (over the counter) on 11/15/2019 - td (11/15/2019)
September 12, 2019
Examinee Guadalupe Savastano to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk. Thereafter, the examination will take place outside the courtroom
November 19, 2019
Continued to Jan. 16, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. per stipulation of the parties.
Debtor(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Defendant(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Richard Bobinski Represented By Crystal Bergstrom
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By
Karen S Naylor (TR)
10:30 AM
Docket 343
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Docket 103
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Sustain in part, overrule in part. Sustain in the amount of $14,993.46 which is disallowed; Overrule as to the delinquent payment amount of $6,851.24 which is allowed as a general unsecured claim.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor admits that he failed to make all contractual payments prior to the postpetition surrender of the leased vehicle in November 2017, twenty months after the first payment became due under the lease agreement. The evidence presented by Debtor is silent as to the number of payments he missed. However, the proof of claim includes a breakdown of the default as of the date of the petition, $6851.24. Given Debtor's admission of non- payment, Debtor has failed to rebut the presumed validity of this portion of the claim. The court agrees that Claimant did not sufficiently substantiate the balance of its claim and did not respond to the objection with evidence to satisfy its ultimate burden of proof as to the same.
Note: If Debtor accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required and Debtor shall lodge an order consistent with the same.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Troy Bernard Jemerson Represented By
Nicholas Nicholas Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19; 9-19-19; 10-17-19
Docket 90
SPECIAL NOTE: Stipulation to Continue Hearing to 12/12/2019 at 10:30 am, filed 11/18/2019; Order Granting Stipulation to Continue Hearing Lodged in LOU on 11/18/2019, Order #9548961 - td (11/19/2019)
August 22, 2019
The court is inclined to sustain the objection as to accrued interest and to overrule the objection as to the principal debt, i.e., $120,000.
The parties are to address the following issues: Debtor:
This court has already abstained from hearing the merits of case involving this loan in light of a pending state court action that Debtor initiated prepetition involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants. Debtor is to advise the court re the status of the state court litigation.
The court finds Debtor's argument that she doesn't owe anything to Claimant because she "never received the money," strains credulity in light of the joint venture agreement she entered into regarding the acquisition of the Sea Island property and her subsequent acknowledgement of the purchase. See Claimant's Opposition, Declaration of Angel Santiago and exhibits attached thereto; Declaration of Michael Van Ness, Exhibit 1.
10:30 AM
Debtor's Objection does not explain or provide any legal analysis regarding relevance of Claimant's lack of a real estate license. She simply declares Claimant is not exempt from usury laws without any legal analysis. The court declines to do Debtor's research for her.
As of July 26, 2019, it appears Claimant is active and no longer suspended.
Even if the interest is usurious, the principal balance remains. Further, even if, because of the lack of notice, the note has not yet matured, the principal debt remains and has to be treated through Debtor's chapter 13 plan.
Claimant
Claimant's assertion of the nonapplicability of Cal. Civ. Code 2966 is unpersuasive in light of the fact that the note itself expressly states that "this note is subject to Section 2966 . . . which provides that the holder . . . shall give written notice to the trustor . . . at least 90 and not more than 150 days before any balloon payment is due." Thus, whether or not Section 2966 would have otherwise applied or not, Claimant clearly intended to provide the protections of Section 2966 by including it in the note that it presumably drafted. Absent notice given pursuant to the note, it has not yet matured.
The note is clearly usurious under California Constitution Article XV Section 1 as it exceeds 10% per annum. Claimant has the ultimate burden of proof and has not provided any basis for it being exempt from the usury law.
The court is not persuaded that Debtor's claim is time-barred. See Debtor's reply.
Special note: This court's ruling as to this claim objection cannot be used by or against any person or entity other than Debtor and Premier Home Solutions, Inc. in any other state or federal action. Further any ruling by this court regarding the subject proof of claim is without prejudice to Premier
10:30 AM
seeking prejudgment interest at the legal rate once notice is properly given under the note.
September 19, 2019
Parties to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter. If additional time to memorialize the settlement is needed, a final continuance may be requested during the tentative ruling roll call prior to the hearing.
Available hearing dates: Oct. 10, 2019 and Oct. 17, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
October 17, 2019
Parties to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
November 19, 2019
Debtor's counsel must appear for today's hearing. The ch. 13 trustee filed an opposition to the motion to compromise on Oct. 23, 2019 and Oct. 31, 2019 but Debtor has not set the matter for hearing as required by LBR 9013-1(o).
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion subject to overbid (overbid procedures approved).
If no overbidders appear at the hearing, the motion will be granted.
Debtor(s):
Paul David Scarborough Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Joint Debtor(s):
Julie Ann Scarborough Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders
10:30 AM
Docket 273
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 275
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion to extend time to assume or reject executory contracts.
Special note: For future reference, regarding the alternative request for assumption of the leases, notice to all affected lessees would be required.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 278
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion to extend time to assume or reject executory contracts.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 280
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion to extend time to assume or reject executory contracts.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 286
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 117
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion to extend time to assume or reject executory contracts.
Special note: For future reference, regarding the alternative request for assumption of the leases, notice to all affected lessees would be required.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Docket 119
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion to extend time to assume or reject executory contracts.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays
10:30 AM
David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Docket 121
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion to extend time to assume or reject executory contracts.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
10:30 AM
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Docket 126
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion to extend time to assume or reject executory contracts.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01044 Van der Laan v. Phong et al
Docket 32
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict Luke P Daniels
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Alex Benedict Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Jacob Van der Laan Represented By John E Lattin
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01044 Van der Laan v. Phong
FR: 6-20-19; 8-22-19; 9-12-19; 10-17-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Under LBR 7055-1 entered 9/17/19; Default Judgment entered 9/18/19 RE: Section 523(a)(2)(A). Still pending re: Section 727(a)(4) - liz (9/20/2019)
June 20, 2019
Continue Status Conference to August 22, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
10:30 AM
August 22, 2019
In light of pending motion for default judgment, continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
September 12, 2019
Declaration re non-opposition to pending motion for default judgment not filed. Continue status conference one final time to October 17, 2019 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
October 17, 2019
Plaintiff's counsel must appear and advise the court re the status of the 727 objection to discharge claim. Has notice of intent to dismiss such claim been served on the ch 7 trustee, US Trustee and all creditors per FRBP 7041?
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
November 19, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of dismissal of second claim for relief.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Represented By Alex L Benedict
Defendant(s):
Samantha Sim Phong Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Jacob Van der Laan Represented By John E Lattin
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 25
CONTINUED: Motion to Continue Motion filed 11/14/2019; Order Granting Motion to Continue Hearing on Motion for Administrative Claim Lodged in LOU on 11/15/2019 SIGNED ON 11/16/19; Hearing continued to 12/12/19 at 10:30 a.m. -- eas
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paul D Blanco Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Movant(s):
Camino Center, a California limited Represented By
Leonard M Shulman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(OSC Issued 10/8/2019)
Docket 11
OFF CALENDAR: Final Fee Installment of $135.00 Paid 11/15/2019,
Receipt #80074299 - adm (11/18/2019)
November 19, 2019
Take matter off calendar -- final installment paid on 11/15/19.
Debtor(s):
Shawn Vasquez Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
(OSC Issued 10/3/2019)
Docket 12
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 10/15/2019 - td (10/17/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jesus Javier Najera Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY LLC , ACCOUNTANTS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE ]
Docket 778
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
[SALL SPENCER CALLAS & KRUEGER, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR]
Docket 779
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
[FORCE TEN PARTNERS, LLC, FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND EXPERT WITNESS FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION]
Docket 780
NONE LISTED -
November 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
[SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR]
Docket 781
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
[LOBEL WEILAND GOLDEN FRIEDMAN LLP, FORMER COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR]
Docket 782
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
[PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP, SPECIAL REORGANIZATION COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR AND DEBTOR IN POSSESSION]
Docket 783
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19; 9-12-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Continue status conference to December 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date in light of the court's approval of the parties' settlement agreement on November 19, 2019.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Andrew Moore Pro Se
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
FR: 7-27-17; 9-21-17, 4-12-18; 5-31-18; 7-19-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19;
5-9-19; 6-18-19; 9-19-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Granting Plaintiff Woodlawn Colonial, L.P.'s
Motion (1) to Dismiss Plaintiff's First & Second Claims for Relief; & (2) for Entry of Judgment on Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief Entered 9/6/2019; Non-Dischargeable Judgment Entered 9/6/2019. Remaining Issue is Defendant's Counterclaim fld 6/12/17, dkt #7 - td (9/6/2019)
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 1/30/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 11/14/2019 (XX) - td (11/14/2019)
July 27, 2017
No tentative ruling -- the disposition of the status conference will depend upon the outcome of Plaintiff's motion for stay of the adversary proceeding, which set on today's 10:30am calendar.
September 21, 2017
Impose sanctions against counsel for Plaintiff in the amount of $100 for failure to file joint status report as required by LBR 7016-1.
Discovery Cut-off Date: Jan. 18, 2018
9:30 AM
Deadline to File Pretrial Motions: Feb. 1, 2018
Reserved hearing date re Pretrial Motions: Mar. 8, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (xx) Pretrial Conference: Apr. 12, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Pretrial Stipulation Mar. 29, 2018
Special Note: Defendant's counterclaim may be moot in light of the sale of the truck by the Trustee.
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
July 19, 2018
In light of pending appeal, continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m., updated status report must be filed by September 13, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 29, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
March 21, 2019
Continue status conference to May 9, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., same date/time as hearing on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at the March 21, 2019 status conference are not required.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Miller
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01049 Rehburg v. Helton-Rehburg
FR: 6-21-18; 1-31-19; 5-2-19; 5-7-19; 8-8-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
June 21, 2018
Discovery Cut-off Date: Nov. 1, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Jan. 11, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Jan. 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.
(XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Jan. 17, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
November 21, 2019
Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 each against counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant for failure to timely file a pretrial stipulation.
Appearances at today's hearing are required.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Represented By Christopher P Walker
Defendant(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa M. Rehburg Represented By Bradley D Blakeley
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01071 Albert-Sheridan v. Education Credit Management Corporation et al
FR: 7-10-18; 12-20-18; 1-31-19; 3-21-19; 6-20-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/30/2020 at 9:30 a.m. Per Order Entered 9/17/2019 (XX) - liz (9/17/2019)
July 10, 2018 | |
Discovery Cut-off Date: | 10/15/18 |
Deadline to Attend Mandatory Mediation: | 11/16/18 |
Pretrial Conference Date: | 12/20/18 at 9:30 a.m. (XX) |
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: | 11/13/18 |
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
March 21, 2019
This matter will be trailed to today's 10:30 a.m. calendar.
June 20, 2019
9:30 AM
Discovery Cut-off Date: Sept. 30, 2019
Pretrial Conference Date: Nov. 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Nov. 7, 2019
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Education Credit Management Represented By Scott A Schiff
The Education Resources Institute Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lenore LuAnn Albert-Sheridan Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01180 Marshack v. Sweeney et al
U.S.C. §542, 547, 548, 550 and California Civil Code Sec. 3439 et seq.
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Continue status conference to February 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to complete service of all defendants. Updated status report must be filed by February 6, 2020.
Note: Appearance at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Francis J. Marzec Represented By Christine A Kingston
Defendant(s):
Anita Sweeney Pro Se
Tori Sweeney Pro Se
Michael Marzec Pro Se
Beth Marzec Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A Marshack Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Anerio V Altman
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Anerio V Altman
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01108 Pipitone v. Choice Motor Credit, LLC
FR: 8-22-19; 10-3-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 1/16/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Entered 11/13/2019 (XX) - td (11/13/2019)
August 22, 2019
Continue Status Conference to October 3, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve Defendant with notice of the continued status conference date/time.
9:30 AM
October 3, 2019
Continue status conference to November 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 7, 2019. (XX)
The status conference is being continued in light of Plaintiff's representations in the status report that some issues have been resolved and that Defendant has hired new counsel to set aside default.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required; Plaintiff to serve Defendant with notice of the continued status conference date/time.
Debtor(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Defendant(s):
Choice Motor Credit, LLC Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia K Pipitone Represented By Marc A Goldbach
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01177 Gama World Technologies, Inc. v. Shewa
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
No proof of service showing proper service of the summons and complaint and no status report filed as required by LBR 7016-1. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against Plaintiff's counsel. Court to issue Order to Show Cause why this adversary proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
Debtor(s):
Chirag Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Defendant(s):
Chirag Shewa Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Gama World Technologies, Inc. Represented By Bryan Leifer
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR, NEW CENTURY EQUITY LOAN TRUST, 2005-1
VS. DEBTORS FR: 10-10-19
Docket 52
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. §362 (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 10/15/2019 - td (10/15/2019)
October 10, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Omar Martinez Sanchez Represented By Bryn C Deb
Movant(s):
Deutsche Bank National Trust Represented By
Diana Torres-Brito Anna Landa
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS.
DEBTOR FR: 11-7-19
Docket 59
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered 11/15/2019 - td (11/15/2019)
November 7, 2019
Grant motion with waiver of Rule 4001(b)(3) Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Though there is an equity cushion of approximately $17,000, the monthly payments of $2,510.19 are unusually high and Debtor has made no postpetition payments. Presumably, the November 1 payment has not been made. Accordingly, the equity cushion will be completely depleted in less than 6 months.
The chapter 7 trustee has not objected to the Motion.
10:00 AM
Objecting creditor Joseph Laplant's request for an order the requires distribution on account of his claimed lien is denied as being beyond the scope of a relief from stay order. To the extent that Laplant has a statutory lien (ORAP), he is certainly free to assert that claim to Movant.
Note: If Movant and Objecting Creditor accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Joseph Ra Represented By
David B Golubchik
Movant(s):
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Represented By Katie M Parker
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Michael G Spector
10:00 AM
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Michael Alan Kohn Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
This matter remains under review by the court; a tentative ruling may be posted at any time prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Gateway Business Complex LLC Represented By
Jonathan Seligmann Shenson
10:30 AM
(Set at Ch 11 Plan Conf. hrg. held 6-15-17) FR: 12-14-17; 5-31-18; 11-15-18; 5-30-19
Docket 5270
NONE LISTED -
December 14, 2017
A post-confirmation status report was due November 30, 2017 per the Confirmation Order entered June 28, 2017 [docket #5285]. Impose sanctions of $100 against Reorganized Debtor's counsel for failure to do so; court to issue OSC why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
May 31, 2018
Continue status conference to November 15, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by November 1, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
November 15, 2018
Continue status conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 unless a final decree has been entered by such date. (XX)
10:30 AM
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
May 30, 2019
Continue status conference to November 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 7, 2019, 2019 unless a final decree has been entered by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
November 21, 2019
Continue status conference to May 21, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by May 7, 2020 unless a final decree has been entered by such date.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Docket 869
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Grant motion
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Movant(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur
10:30 AM
[BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP, SPECIAL LITIGATION COUNSEL FOR RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 874
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Allow all fees on an interim basis and award payment of 80% of fees and 100% of expenses. The 20% holdback may be requested as part of the final fee application.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw
10:30 AM
Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, LLP, ACCOUNTANT TO CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 878
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Approve interim fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy
10:30 AM
David Wood Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 883
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Allow all fees on an interim basis and award payment of 80% of fees and 100% of expenses. The 20% holdback may be requested as part of the final fee application.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros
10:30 AM
Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur
10:30 AM
[MARSHACK HAYS LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE, RICHARD A. MARSHACK]
Docket 885
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Allow all fees on an interim basis and award payment of 80% of fees and 100% of expenses. The 20% holdback may be requested as part of the final fee application.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy David Wood
Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith
10:30 AM
Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur
10:30 AM
[ARENT FOX LLP, SPECIAL HEALTHCARE COUNSEL TO THE CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 887
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Allow all fees on an interim basis and award payment of 80% of fees and 100% of expenses. The 20% holdback may be requested as part of the final fee application.
Debtor(s):
Donald Woo Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Linda Bae Lee Represented By
Robert B Rosenstein
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kyra E Andrassy
10:30 AM
David Wood Matthew Grimshaw Nathan F Smith Arturo M Cisneros Norma Ann Dawson Robert S Lawrence Caroline Djang Brett Ramsaur
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19; 8-15-19; 10-17-19
Docket 128
NONE LISTED -
July 16. 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Stephen Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
October 17, 2019
Judgment creditor has not sought the issuance of an OSC re contempt. Continue hearing to November 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. Any motion for OSC
10:30 AM
re contempt may be heard on the same date.
November 21, 2019
Judgment creditor to advise the court re the status of this matter. The court notes that judgment creditor has not sought the issuance of an OSC re contempt.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:16-01247 Damon v. Haythorne
FR: 7-16-19; 8-15-19; 10-17-19
Docket 130
NONE LISTED -
July 16. 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 8, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
August 15, 2019
Kelli Haythorne to appear in court to be sworn in by the court clerk; the examination will take place outside the courtroom.
October 17, 2019
Judgment creditor has not sought the issuance of an OSC re contempt. Continue hearing to November 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. Any motion for OSC
10:30 AM
re contempt may be heard on the same date.
November 21, 2019
Judgment creditor to advise the court re the status of this matter. The court notes that judgment creditor has not sought the issuance of an OSC re contempt.
Debtor(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Represented By David S Henshaw
Defendant(s):
Stephen J Haythorne Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Hugh C Damon Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
FR: 1-31-19; 2-12-19; 4/18/19; 7-11-19; 7-16-19; 9-12-19
Docket 24
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 2/20/2020 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order Entered 11/12/2019 (XX) - td (11/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Represented By
Todd C. Ringstad
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01085 Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Moore et al
(Another Summons Issued 9/13/18)
FR: 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4/18/19; 7-11-19, 7-16-19; 9-12-19
Docket 3
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 2/20/2020 at 2:00 p.m., Per Order Entered 11/12/2019 (XX) - td (11/12/2019)
January 31, 2019
Continued to March 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Stuart Moore Pro Se
Sylvie Moore Masson Pro Se
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey, Chapter 7 Trustee Represented By
Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
10:30 AM
Docket 134
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Cozette Hanich Represented By Julie J Villalobos
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01073 Woodlawn Colonial, L P v. Delannoy
Docket 139
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Continue hearing on the Motion to December 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Movant to correct service issue: Defendant and his counsel were not served with the Motion in accordance with LBR 9013-1. Service must be made no later than November 27, 2019.
Tentative Ruing for 12/19/19 hearing (if unopposed): Grant.
Note: If Movant accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Chad Paul Delannoy Represented By Robert P Goe Charity J Manee
Thomas J Eastmond
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Woodlawn Colonial, L P Represented By Howard M Bidna Evan Rothman
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Kathleen J McCarthy
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. Hrg. Held 6-26-19)
Docket 761
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Continue status conference to February 20, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.; an updated status report must be filed by February 6, 2020.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
10:30 AM
[KAREN SUE NAYLOR, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 34
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Raj Malhotra Represented By
Leslie K Kaufman
Joint Debtor(s):
Nayana Malhotra Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Grant Movant's request for the entry of an order consistent with Tony Diab's Statement of Intent (dated 11/18/19) not to practice in the Bankruptcy Court of the Central District of California for at least five years.
Note: Appearances at this hearing re not required; Movant to lodge an order consistent with the tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
William R Roman Jr. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Lorraine Stephanie Roman Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Claims bar date: Jan. 27, 2020 (notice to creditors by 11/27/19)
Deadline to file plan/DS : Jan. 31, 2020
Continued Status Conference: Feb. 20, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report due: Feb. 6, 2020 (waived if plan/DS timely filed)
Note: If Debtors accept the foregoing tentative ruling and are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtors to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Trent Tyrell Berglin Represented By Michael Jones
Joint Debtor(s):
Adrienne Lynn Berglin Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
(OSC Issued 10/25/2019)
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Dismiss case.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
LBR 9011-2(a) expressly provides that "a corporation, a partnership including a limited liability partnership, a limited liability company, or any other unincorporated association, or a trust may not file a petition or otherwise appear without counsel in any case or proceeding." Unless Debtor's principal is a licensed attorney, he may not file a petition or otherwise appear on behalf of Debtor.
The Court in In re Abbington Partners, LLC, 2014 WL 3735736 (July 28, 2014) aptly stated longstanding law on this issue:
The law is clear that a corporation must be represented by counsel in a bankruptcy proceeding and may not file a bankruptcy petition pro se.
M.D.N.C. LBR 9011–2 (“All partnerships, corporations, and other business entities ... must be represented by an attorney duly admitted to practice before the court”); Rowland v. Ca. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”); In re Tamojira,
10:30 AM
Inc., 20 F. App'x 133, 133–34 (4th Cir.2001) (“[I]t is well settled that a corporation must be represented by an attorney in federal court.”); Terry v. Sparrow, 328 B.R. 442, 446 (M.D.N.C.2005) (“Under well-established federal law, ‘a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.’ ”). Similarly, an individual without a license to practice law cannot file a petition on behalf of a corporate entity. In re Spencer C. Young Inv./Courtyard of Chapel Hill, LLC, No. 08–81852, 2009 WL 901654, at *3 (Bankr.M.D.N.C. Feb.4, 2009). Lack of legal representation is grounds alone to dismiss a bankruptcy case brought by a corporation in federal court.
Carrico v. Vill. of Sugar Mountain, 114 F.Supp.2d 422, 424 (W.D.N.C.2000).
The chapter 7 trustee, in his reply to this OSC, states no legal basis or authority for his position that the court should "look the other way."
In federal courts an individual may proceed either pro se or by an attorney. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.”
) Although federal statutes protect an individual's right to conduct her own litigation, that right has never been interpreted to allow a corporation to appear pro se. See Carr Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 698 F.2d 952, 953 (8th Cir. 1983). Unlike an individual, a corporation is an artificial entity, which can only act or appear through an authorized agent. See Ritchie Grocer Co.
v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 426 F.2d 499, 500 (8th Cir. 1970) (asserting the general principle of corporate law that a corporation may only act through its authorized agents); see also Envtl. Corp. v. Knight (In re Goodman), 991 F.2d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting the view that a corporation is an “individual” as defined by the Bankruptcy Code). As a result, it is a well-settled principle that a corporation must be represented by an attorney to appear in federal court. Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel”); Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 U.S. 738, 830 (1824); First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United States, 194 F.3d 1279,
10:30 AM
1290 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 392–93 (2d Cir.
1997); In re Tamojira, Inc., 20 Fed.Appx. 133, 133–34 (4th Cir. 2001); National Indep. Theatre Exhibitors v. Buena Vista Distrib., 748 F.2d 602, 609 (11th Cir. 1984); Carr Enter., Inc. v. United States, 698 F.2d at 953.
a corporation may not appear in federal court pro se. See e .g., Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721, 121 L.Ed.2d 656
(1993); Plimpton v. Cooper, 141 F.Supp.2d 573, 575 (W.D.N.C.2001).
An individual without a license to practice law cannot act on behalf of a corporate entity in filing a bankruptcy petition. In re Elshiddi Enters., 126 B.R. 785, 788 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1991). See also Dick Tracy Ins. Agency, Inc., 204
B.R. 38 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1997) (holding corporation must be represented by counsel in bankruptcy proceeding and may not file petition pro se).
Debtor(s):
Greenplanet Broadbord Inc. Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01039 Chokshi v. Malhotra et al
FR: 11-7-19
Docket 16
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part; Grant motion to allow attorneys fees in the amount of $5,000 under CCP 1021 against Plaintiff only, payable 60 days after entry of order approving the Motion. Deny motion as to the balance of the attorneys fees requested.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Fees are allowable under CCP 1021 under the facts in this case. The nondischargeability complaint was based on allegations of fraud arising out of the subject contract. The language in the underlying asset purchase agreement does not limit fees to enforcement of the agreement but allows such fees for "any matter arising out of" the same. Asset Purchase Agreement , Sec. 7.1. The expanded language permits attorneys fees under CCP 1021 in a nondischargeability action for fraud arising out of the subject agreement. See In re Davis 595 B.R. 818 (Bankr.C.D.Cal 2019), aff'd by the BAP, 2019 WL 2931668 (July 3, 2019). For purposes of CCP 1021, Debtor Raj Malhotra is the prevailing party.
CC1717 does not apply because the adversary was voluntarily dismissed
10:30 AM
by Plaintiff and, therefore, there is no prevailing party. CC 1717(b)(2).
28 U.S.C. 1927 does not apply because the bankruptcy court is not a "court of the United States" within the meaning of Section 1927 and, therefore, bankruptcy court lack authority to grant fees under 1927. In re DeVille, 3 F.3d 539, 546 (9th Cir. 2004)
The court declines to invoke its inherent sanction powers.
Debtor(s):
Raj Malhotra Represented By
Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Raj Malhotra Represented By
Leslie K Kaufman
Nayana Malhotra Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Leslie Keith Law offices of Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Nayana Malhotra Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Plaintiff(s):
Manisha Chokshi Represented By Onyinye N Anyama Vithlani Dilip
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 11-7-19
Docket 28
NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Sustain in part; Overrule in part. Sustain only as to the secured status of post-judgment HOA assessments, late fees, costs, attorneys fees and other charges. Overrule as to 1) any objection to the amount of the claim and 2) any objection to the secured status of the damages covered by the recorded judgments, including accrued interest.
November 21, 2019
Same tentative ruling as for the November 7, 2019 hearing (see above).
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required. Debtor to lodge an order consistent with the Nov. 7, 2019 tentative ruling.
Debtor(s):
Shauna Barnhardt Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Docket 292
NONE LISTED -
November 21, 2019
Grant motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
2:00 PM
FR: 8-8-19, 9-19-19
Docket 740
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01095 Steward Financial LLC v. Bral
FR: 8-8-19; 9-19-19
Docket 78
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Steward Financial LLC Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:17-01095 Steward Financial LLC v. Bral
FR: 9-20-18; 3-21-19; 8-15-19; 9-19-19
Docket 35
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by March 7, 2019 (XX)
March 21, 2019
Continuue status conference to August 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report to be filed by August 1, 2019. Deadline for Defendant to file responsive pleading to the FAC: June 20, 2019. (XX)
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at the March 21, 2019 hearing are not required.
August 15, 2019
Continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.; an updated status report is not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve
2:00 PM
notice of the continued date/time.
September 19, 2019
Continue status conference to November 21, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.; an updated status report is not required. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued date/time.
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Babak Samini Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By William N Lobel Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
Steward Financial LLC Represented By
Krikor J Meshefejian Gary E Klausner
1:30 PM
Docket 29
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 15
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Steve Kim Represented By
Richard L. Sturdevant
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Edgard Paniz Represented By
Anthony B Vigil
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 29
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jaime Dale Krueger Represented By Edward T Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paul Edwin Baloloy Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 31
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nelson D. Randlin Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 11/4/2019 - td (11/4/2019
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dawn Marie Lane Represented By Arlene M Tokarz
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 6
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lester Franklin Stevens Jr. Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Joint Debtor(s):
Nancy Ashley Stevens Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 7
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John William Carter Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Elisa B. Sim Represented By
Andrew Moher
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 8
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dimitrios A Kouzoukas Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Joint Debtor(s):
Jessica R Kouzoukas Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 17
OFF CALENDAR: Confirmation Hearing Re-Noticed for 12/20/2019 at 9:30 a.m.; See Court's Notice filed 11/6/2019 (XX) - td (11/6/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Morteza Hamidi Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 10/15/2019 - td (11/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Darryl Wayne Norman Represented By Bahram Madaen
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 10/8/2019 - td (11/4/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Carlos J Calvillo Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Rey Pascua Berona Represented By Raymond J Seo
Joint Debtor(s):
Lolita De Ocampo Berona Represented By Raymond J Seo
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ellie Elape Lam Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Otilia Amparo Zepeda Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 27
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Erica Duarte Bruce Represented By Andrew Moher
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Eric Anthony Perez Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Salvador Ramon Molina Represented By Steven A Alpert
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert P Fiorentino Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Joint Debtor(s):
Phyllis A Fiorentino Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 19
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paul D Blanco Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Timothy B Lovell Represented By Alisa Admiral
Joint Debtor(s):
Jeana M Lovell Represented By Alisa Admiral
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Peter Stankovich Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 13
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ken Saclo Represented By
Andy C Warshaw
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 11
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Heather Gomes Represented By Tina H Trinh
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 4
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Fouse Represented By
Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 14
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Augusta Ayona Represented By Jaime A Cuevas Jr.
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Diana Gomez Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Michael E. Silbermann Represented By Joseph C Rosenblit
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 12
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lisa Anna Gregorius Represented By Sheila M Pistone
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 2
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Sandra Fuamatu Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 8
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 10/2/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (10/3/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Juan Carlos Portillo Represented By Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
1:30 PM
Docket 10
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Shauna Barnhardt Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 43
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Mario Jonathan Saldivar Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Braddock Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 10-22-19
Docket 44
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 10-22-19
Docket 41
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Robert Lynn McEwen Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 33
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
David Maurice Denman Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 49
NONE LISTED -
November 26, 2019
Allow fees and expenses in the amount requested LESS $180 for fees relating to preparation of the fee application (one hour at $450 allowed for preparation of the fee application).
Debtors' counsel also needs to advise the court if she actually appeared on the unopposed hearing on motion to value held on July 19, 2018 for which she charged one hour of time at $450. The court issued a tentative ruling in advance of that hearing advising that the matter was unopposed and that an appearance at the hearing would not be necessary.
As for the time charged for preparing the fee application, the court finds that
1.4 hours to prepare a simple form application is excessive. The court will allow one hour or $450 for preparation of the fee application. The court notes that the chapter 13 trustee's statement in his comments that "fees and hearings related to the litigation of the fee application itself is prohibited" by the USSC's decision in Baker Botts v. ASARCO, 135 S.Ct. 2158 (2015). To the extent that the trustee is asserting that the preparation of a fee application is not allowable under Baker Botts, he is incorrect. The pertinent ruling of Baker Botts is that the defense of a fee application is not allowable (once a party objects to the fee application). Stated otherwise, under Baker Botts, an attorney's preparation of a fee application is part of the "services rendered" to the bankruptcy estate but the attorney's defense of that
2:30 PM
application is not. Id. at 2166-2167. Accordingly, fees charged by Debtors' counsel for the preparation of her fee application are allowable, but time spent opposing the trustee's objections to the application, including appearing at today's hearing, is not.
Debtor(s):
Vincent D. Gamboa Represented By Christine A Kingston
Joint Debtor(s):
Lisa K. Sarvinski-Gamboa Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 56
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Edgar Guzman Represented By Rebecca Tomilowitz
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 8-27-19; 9-24-19; 10-22-19
Docket 92
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Troy Bernard Jemerson Represented By Nicholas M Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 63
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 11/13/2019 - td (11/13/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Margarita Calderon Represented By Stephen R Wade
W. Derek May
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 107
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nathan M. Donahue Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 47
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 11/12/2019 - td (11/12/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Fred L Ridge Represented By
Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 129
NONE LISTED -
November 26, 2019
Approve fees and costs in the amount of $1,199.20. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
When the Declaration re Default was filed on August 9, 2019, Debtor's counsel could have filed a simple notice of opposition and attached proof of the payments. The court would have reviewed the declaration and opposition and determined whether to deny the entry of a RFS order or set the matter for hearing. However, Debtors themselves requested a hearing. [Docket #123]. Based on Debtors' request, the Creditor set the matter for hearing and this court signed the lodged order regarding the same. [Docket #124]
On August 21, 2019, at 9:53 a.m., the Creditor lodged the Order setting the matter for hearing on September 12, 2019 (as requested by Debtors), which the Court signed the same day. Later, in the afternoon of August 21, 2019 at 12:00 p.m., the Creditor filed its Withdrawal of Declaration Re: Default Under Adequate Protection Order. [Docket #126]. Once the Withdrawal was filed, there was no longer and default declaration for Debtors to respond to or for the court to consider. The matter of the default was effectively moot.
Debtors' counsel indicates that from August 21, 2019 through August 29,
2:30 PM
2019, she checked for a tentative ruling from the court regarding the September 12, 2019 hearing. However, as Debtors' counsel should be aware, this court never posts tentative rulings 2-3 weeks in advance of the hearing.
Further, she could have contacted the court's courtroom deputy to determine the status of the September 12, 2019 hearing. Had she done so, she would have learned that the matter had been deemed "off-calendar" as of August 21, 2019. Even without contacting the courtroom deputy, Debtors' counsel should have known that there was no longer any evidence from the Creditor for the court to consider on September 12, 2019. Moreover, the Creditor did not have the authority to "withdraw the Order" as Debtors' counsel has suggested in her Declaration dated October 4, 2019 at paragraph 11. [Docket #137].
In light of the foregoing circumstances, the filing of the Opposition to the withdrawn default declaration was unnecessary. Accordingly, the amount charged, $525.00, will not be allowed.
As for the time charged for preparing the fee application, the court finds that nearly two hours to prepare a simple form application is excessive. The court will allow one hour or $350 for preparation of the fee application. The court notes that the chapter 13 trustee's statement in his comments that "fees and hearings related to the litigation of the fee application itself is prohibited" by the USSC's decision in Baker Botts v. ASARCO, 135 S.Ct. 2158 (2015). To the extent that the trustee is asserting that the preparation of a fee application is not allowable under Baker Botts, he is incorrect. The pertinent ruling of Baker Botts is that the defense of a fee application is not allowable (once a party objects to the fee application). Stated otherwise, under Baker Botts, an attorney's preparation of a fee application is part of the "services rendered" to the bankruptcy estate but the attorney's defense of that application is not. Id. at 2166-2167. Accordingly, fees charged by Debtors' counsel for the preparation of her fee application are allowable, but time spent opposing the trustee's objections to the application, including appearing at today's hearing, is not.
Debtor(s):
Douglas Allen Dawson Represented By
2:30 PM
Christine A Kingston
Joint Debtor(s):
Jennifer Ann Dawson Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 112
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Thomas Winslor Eddy Represented By Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Colleen Marie Eddy Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
FR: 10-22-19
Docket 124
NONE LISTED -
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Catherina D. Salazar Represented By Michael Jay Berger
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:30 PM
Docket 64
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 Filed 10/28/2019 - td (10/28/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John Phillip Driver Represented By Daniel King
Joint Debtor(s):
Dawn Denyce Driver Represented By Daniel King
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01153 Hinker v. Hinker
FR: 12-14-17; 3-22-18; 3-29-18; 6-21-18; 9-20-18; 12-6-18; 4-18-19; 9-19-19
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
March 29, 2018
Continue status conference to June 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated report re status of state court action must be filed by June 7, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 21, 2018
Continue status conference to September 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated report re status of state court action must be filed by September 7, 2018. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
September 20, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 29, 2018. (XX)
Special Note: The status report for December 6, 2018 should provide a
9:30 AM
substantive update of the status/procedural posture of the state court action.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending state court litigation, continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by September 5, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
September 19, 2019
In light of the upcoming trial in the state court litigation, continue status conference to December 5, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 21, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 5, 2019
In light of the pending state court matter, continue this Status Conference to May 21, 2020; updated Joint Status Report must be filed by May 7, 2020.
9:30 AM
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Todd Leroy Hinker Represented By
Diane L Mancinelli
Defendant(s):
Todd Leroy Hinker Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Christine Hinker Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01188 Kosmala v. Breidenbach et al
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Continue Status Conference to February 6, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Represented By Christopher P Walker
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Andrea M. Breidenbach Pro Se
Manuela I. Kitchen Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Erin P Moriarty
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01189 Kosmala v. Merhab Robinson, Jackson & Clarkson, APC et al
U.S.C. §§544, 550, 551); Avoid, Recover and Preserve Preferential Transfers (11 U.S.C. §§547, 550 551); and Disllow/Subordinate Homestead Exemption)
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 2/20/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 12/2/2019 (XX) - td (12/2/2019)
NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Represented By Christopher P Walker
Defendant(s):
Merhab Robinson, Jackson & Pro Se Merhab Robinson & Clarkson, APC Pro Se James T. Jackson, APC Pro Se
James T. Jackson Pro Se
Maria H. Helton-Rehburg Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Weneta M.A. Kosmala Represented By Erin P Moriarty
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01170 Add2Net, Inc. v. Natzic et al
FR: 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19; 8-22-19; 9-19-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 2/20/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Entered 11/20/2019 (XX) - td (11/22/2019)
June 20, 2019
No tentative ruling. This tentative will be trailed to the 2:00 p.m. calendar along with the Motion to Dismiss
September 19, 2019
In light of the upcoming trial in the state court litigation, continue status conference to December 5, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 21, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
George Carl Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Defendant(s):
George Carl Natzic Pro Se
Cheri Lynn Natzic Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Cheri Lynn Natzic Represented By Moises S Bardavid
Plaintiff(s):
Add2Net, Inc. Represented By
Kevin Meek
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01078 Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Dulac, Trustees o v. Dulac et al
FR: 7-18-19; 9-19-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Status conference set for 2/6/2020 at 9:30 a.m. re: Complaint in intervention (liz - 11-19-19)
July 18, 2019
Continue status conference to September 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. to allow the chapter 7 trustee the opportunity to intervene. (XX)
Special Note: It appears the complaint is seeking relief against property of the bankruptcy estate and, therefore, the chapter 7 trustee would be an indispensable party.
Note: If all parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time (including service to the chapter 7 trustee).
September 19, 2019
Continue status conference to December 5, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by November 21, 2019. (XX)
Special comment: The court notes that though the Trustee signed the Joint
9:30 AM
Status Report on 9/17/19, the Trustee dismissed her Complaint in Intervention on 9/16/19.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
December 5, 2019
Continue the Status Conference to February 6, 2020 at 9:30 a.m., same date/time as Status Conference now set for Third Party Complaint. Joint Status Report must be filed by January 23, 2020.
Note: Appearances at today's hearing are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Lillian Sikanovski Dulac Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Defendant(s):
Ronald H. Dulac Pro Se
Lillian Sikanovski Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Bertrand H Dulac and Georgette C Represented By
Ronald Appel
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01184 Richard A. Marshack v. Carrillo
Docket 1
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: Mar. 6, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Apr. 16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to file Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Apr. 2, 2020
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Jorge David Gonzalez Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Defendant(s):
Claudia M. Carrillo Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Robert P Goe
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 66
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Movant to advise the court whether Debtor is current in light of documents attached to the Opposition filed on Nov. 21, 2019. If additional time is needed, the parties may obtain a continuance by requesting the same during the calendar roll-call just prior to the hearing. Available continued hearing dates: Dec. 19, 2019 or January 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Debtor(s):
Jean A Butler-Boren Represented By Thomas J Polis
Movant(s):
Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 2018-G, Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Reilly D Wilkinson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTOR; JORGE TORRES, NON-DEBTOR CO-DEBTOR
Docket 29
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation)/Adequate Protection Order Entered 12/4/2019 - td (12/4/2019)
December 5, 2019
Grant motion unless Debtor is current by the time of the hearing, the parties have agreed to an adequate protection order, or Movant is agreable to a continued hearing date. If Movant agrees to a continued hearing date, the parties may obtain a continuance by requesting the same during the calendar roll-call just prior to the hearing. Available continued hearing dates: Dec. 19, 2019 or January 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Special note: In addition to current mortgage payments, Debtor is also delinquent on plan payments to the Trustee.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Olga Torres Represented By
Bryn C Deb
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Renee M Parker
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
ORANGE COUNTY BAIL BONDS, INC. VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 52
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant motion without 4001(a)(3) waiver under 362(d)(2) (no equity in property and property not necessary for reorganization.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtors have cited no legally cognizable basis for disputing the entry of the judgment or the amount of Movant's claims. Under Bankruptcy Code Section 502,the proofs of claim filed by Movant are presumed to be valid. Finally, the state court judgments are presumably final (the court is not aware of any pending appeals).
Debtors have presented no evidence to refute the assertion that there is no equity in the subject property.
There is no reorganization in a chapter 7 case.
The chapter 7 trustee was served with the Motion but did not file an
10:00 AM
opposition to the Motion.
Debtor(s):
Mohammad I. Niazi Represented By Freddie V Vega
Joint Debtor(s):
Parwin Saddozai Represented By Freddie V Vega
Movant(s):
Orange County Bail Bonds, Inc. Represented By Marc C Forsythe
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 9
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Tracy Livingston Represented By Gary Polston
Movant(s):
First Investors Financial Services Represented By
Sheryl K Ith
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR; AND THOMAS H. CASEY, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
Docket 8
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Tuyen Vo Represented By
Tina H Trinh
Movant(s):
HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By Vincent V Frounjian
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS; AND THOMAS H. CASEY, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
Docket 17
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Roy Stanton Represented By
Timothy McFarlin
Joint Debtor(s):
Janet Stanton Represented By
Timothy McFarlin
Movant(s):
HONDA LEASE TRUST Represented By
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Vincent V Frounjian
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 14
CONTINUED: Continued to 1/9/2020 at 10:00 a.m., Per Order Entered
12/3/2019 (XX) - td (12/3/2019)
Debtor(s):
Greenplanet Broadbord Inc. Pro Se
Movant(s):
Benjamin P. Lucas, a Sole Represented By Edward T Weber
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 7
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Vishundyal Ramotar Mohabir Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:13-01220 Bobinski v. Savastano
Docket 183
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Examinee Dominic Savastano to appear in court for swearing in by the courtroom clerk; the examination will thereafter proceed outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Defendant(s):
Luis Savastano Represented By Nathan Fransen
Plaintiff(s):
Richard Bobinski Represented By Crystal Bergstrom
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By
Karen S Naylor (TR)
10:30 AM
Docket 600
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Robert Boyajian Represented By Michael G Spector Vicki L Schennum Jessica G McKinlay
10:30 AM
Docket 15
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Daghan Izberk Represented By Joseph A Weber
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 111
NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Basis for Tentative Ruling
Debtor's objection is overruled based upon the trustee's detailed explanation and clarification of the relief being sought as set forth in the Reply, which the court adopts and incorporates herein by reference.
Note: If Debtor accepts the tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Christopher A Schaller Represented By Vincent Renda
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
VV Hospitality LLC Represented By Yoon O Ham
Thomas F Nowland
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Robert P Goe
10:30 AM
[FINANCIAL RELIEF LAW CENTER, COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR IN POSSESSION]
Docket 158
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 160
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
Movant(s):
DFH Network Inc. Represented By Andy C Warshaw
Richard L. Sturdevant
10:30 AM
Docket 12
OFF CALENDAR: Voluntary Dismissal of Motion filed 12/4/2019. - sb (12/5/19)
December 5, 2019
Deny motion without prejudice. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
The motion does not provide sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the case on the basis of bad faith.
Debtor admits to the unauthorized use of a social security number assigned to another person (XXX-XX-8115) from 2013-2018 for employment (and presumably also for credit obtained during the same period), which is likely a criminal matter. However, Debtor did not use that SS# to file the bankruptcy petition. The reported cases that touch on this issue all involved cases where the false SS# was used to file the petition and the primary issue was denial or revocation of discharge under 727. See, e.g., In re Guadarrama, 284 B.R.
463 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.2002); In re Riccardo, 248 B.R. 717 (D.Colo.2009); In re Perez, 411 B.R. 386 (D.Colo.2009).
Section 707(b)(3)(A) provides for dismissal where a debtor files the petition in bad faith. Here, the false SS# was not used to file the petition and Debtor readily disclosed the unauthorized use. Further, Movant has not satisfied its
10:30 AM
burden of proof under 707(b)(3)(B) re the totality of the circumstances. While the court in no way condones the unlawful use of a social security number , which is tantamount to identity fraud against the lawful assignee of the SS# and against unsuspecting creditors, the court is not persuaded that dismissal is the appropriate remedy.
Debtor(s):
Jose Alberto Hernandez Campos Represented By
Raymond Perez
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 21
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Sustain objection.
Note: As this matter is unopposed, appearance at this hearing is not required.
Debtor(s):
Rebecca Lujan Robles Represented By Christopher J Langley
Movant(s):
Rebecca Lujan Robles Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Deadline to file plan/disclosure statement: Feb. 28, 2020
Continued status conference: Apr. 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
Deadline to file updated status report: Mar.26, 2020*
*Requirement of an updated status report is waived if the plan and disclosure statement are timely filed.
Note: If Debtors accept the foregoing tentative ruling and are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtors to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Jr. Represented By Michael Jones
10:30 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Claims bar date: Feb. 14, 2020
Deadline to serve notice of claims bar date: Dec. 13, 2019 Deadline to file plan/disclosure statement: Feb. 21, 2020
Continued status conference: Apr. 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
Deadline to file updated status report: Mar.26, 2020*
*Requirement of an updated status report is waived if the plan and disclosure statement are timely filed.
Note: If Debtors accept the foregoing tentative ruling and are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtors to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Dove Real Estate & Association Represented By Daniel J Weintraub
10:30 AM
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
No status report filed other than Debtor's counsel's statement that Debtor has terminated legal representation. As a business entity may not represent itself in a bankruptcy case, the court will issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Dismissed Due to Violation of Local Bankruptcy Rule 9020-2.
Debtor(s):
Sepas Property Management LLC Represented By
Dennis Connelly
10:30 AM
FR: 11-14-19
Docket 24
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
As to the request in the Motion for joint and several liability of professional fees and expenses, grant in part and deny in part. Grant only as to services that affect all debtors; deny as to services that affect individual debtors. The lead case may be charged with the joint services. All other services affecting individual debtors must include separate time records and separate fee applications. The lead case fee application must include in the narration of services, a statement of services rendered that affect all debtors and why such services affect all debtors.
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
10:30 AM
Docket 43
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Potential Service Issue: LBR 2014-1(b)(2)(1) requires that employment applications be served on the 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors. The court could not determine from the proof of service re this application that such creditors were served. If not, the hearing on this application will be continued to January 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
If service is determined to be correct, grant the application, including the
Knudsen provisions and overrule all objections to the same.
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
10:30 AM
Docket 44
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Potential Service Issue: LBR 2014-1(b)(2)(1) requires that employment applications be served on the 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors. The court could not determine from the proof of service re this application that such creditors were served. If not, the hearing on this application will be continued to January 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
If service is determined to be correct, grant the application, including the Knudsen provisions and overrule all objections to the same. However, applicant must file quarterly fee applications commencing at the end of the first quarter 2020.
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
10:30 AM
Docket 49
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Potential Service Issue: LBR 2014-1(b)(2)(1) requires that employment applications be served on the 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors. The court could not determine from the proof of service re this application that such creditors were served. If not, the hearing on this application will be continued to January 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
If service is determined to be correct, grant the application, without the conditions of weekly reports requested by objecting creditor -- the court finds such a request unnecessarily burdensome.
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
10:30 AM
Docket 50
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 12/19/2019 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order
Entered 1/3/2019 (XX) - td (12/3/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
10:30 AM
Docket 60
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Potential Service Issue: LBR 2014-1(b)(2)(1) requires that employment applications be served on the 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors. The court could not determine from the proof of service re this application that such creditors were served. If not, the hearing on this application will be continued to January 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
If service is determined to be correct, grant the application, modified by the terms set forth in Debtor's reply.
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
10:30 AM
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Order Granting Motion to Approve Joint Administration of Cases in Part and Setting Hearing on Certain Issues Entered 10/10/2019. LEAD CASE: BRUCE ELIEFF, Case No. (8:19-bk-13858-ES)
Jointly Administered with Member Cases: Morse Properties, LLC, Case No. (8:19-bk-13874-ES); and 4627 Camden, LLC, Case No. (8:19-
bk-13875-ES).
December 5, 2019
Claims bar date: Feb. 14, 2020
Deadline to serve notice of claims bar date: Dec. 13, 2019 Deadline to file plan/disclosure statement: Feb. 21, 2020
Continued status conference: Apr. 9, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
Deadline to file updated status report: Mar.26, 2020*
*Special note: a hearing on the motion for summary judgment re the subordination action cannot be heard prior to April 9, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
*Requirement of an updated status report is waived if the plan and disclosure statement are timely filed.
Note: If Debtors accept the foregoing tentative ruling and are in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is the responsibility of Debtors to confirm compliance with the U.S. Trustee prior to the
10:30 AM
hearing.
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
10:30 AM
Docket 9
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 11/27/2019 - td (11/27/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Richard P Alexander Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:19-01031 Bral v. Samini et al
Docket 30
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Grant in part; deny in part. Grant partial summary adjudication as to the second claim for relief for legal malpractice; grant as to the third claim for relief as to the existence of a fiduciary duty but deny as the breach of such duty; deny motion as to the amount of damages as to the second and third claims for relief.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
On February 20, 2019, Debtor filed the instant complaint against Babak Samini aka Bobby Samini ("Samini"), Matthew Hoesly ("Hoesly"), and Samini Schenberg, APC (the "Samini Firm")(Samini, Hoesly, and the Samini Firm, collectively, "Defendants") alleging causes of action for breach of contract, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty (the "Complaint").
Defendants filed an answer on July 19, 2019 (the "Answer")[AP dkt. # 24]. Per the Court’s August 29, 2019 scheduling order, the discovery cutoff date is January 23, 2020, the deadline to file a pretrial stipulation is February 20, 2020, and the pretrial conference is set for March 5, 2020 [AP dkt. #27].
Debtor moves for partial summary judgment against Defendants on the second claim for relief, legal malpractice, and the third claim for relief, breach of fiduciary duty (the "Motion") [AP dkt. #30], causing Debtor to suffer damages in the amount of $277,639.14.
2:00 PM
Undisputed Facts
Debtor retained the Samini Firm to represent him in a civil action filed January 8, 2014, entitled Barry A. Beitler v. John Bral in L.A. Superior Court (the "State Court"), case no. BC532523 ("the Beitler Litigation"). Debtor’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts ("UF") 1; Defendants’ Statement of Genuine Issues ("GI") 1. Samini supervised the representation of Debtor in the Beitler Litigation. UF 2; GI 2. Hoesly also was an attorney at the Samini Firm and represented Debtor in the Beitler Litigation. UF 3; GI 3. Debtor also retained Lloyd Chapman ("Chapman") to represent him in the Beitler Litigation. UF 4; GI 4. Chapman and the Samini Firm associated in as co- counsel to provide a defense for Debtor in the Beitler Litigation. UF 5; GI 5.
On May 24, 2016, the Court ordered Debtor to appear on June 22, 2016 for another session of his deposition and to produce documents to Beitler’s counsel (the "May 24, 2016 Order"). UF 9; GI 9. The clerk of the Court served the notice of the May 24, 2016 Order on the Samini Firm and Chapman, but not on Debtor. UF 10, 11; GI 10, 11.
Defendants did not inform Debtor of the May 24, 2016 Order or the June 22, 2016 deposition date (the "Deposition"). UF 12; GI 12. As a result, Debtor was unaware of the Deposition and did not appear. UF 13; GI 12.
Defendants also did not appear. UF 14; GI 14.
On May 27, 2016, Chapman filed a notice of the disassociation in the Beitler Litigation. Debtor RJN, Ex. 4.
After Debtor and Defendants failed to appear for the Deposition, Beitler filed an ex parte application and later a regularly noticed motion for an order striking Debtor’s answer and entering his default (the "Sanctions Motion"). UF 15; GI 15.
In the opposition to the Sanction Motion, Defendants stated to the State Court that Debtor’s failure to appear at the Deposition was due to "counsel’s error" and not Debtor’s fault. UF 16; GI 16. Defendants did not
2:00 PM
include a declaration from Debtor in the opposition. UF 17; GI 17.
At the hearing on Sanctions Motion, an attorney from the Samini Firm stated on the record that Debtor failed to appear at the Deposition due to counsel office made an error. UF 18; GI 18. The State Court noted that no declaration from Debtor attesting to the fact that he was unaware of the Deposition had been filed. UF 19; GI 19. The attorney from the Samini Firm failed to request a continuance or offer to produce Debtor to testify, and the Sanctions Motion was granted and Debtor’s answer was stricken (the "Sanctions Order"). UF 20-23; GI 20-23. A default judgment was subsequently entered against Debtor in the amount of $2,514,631 (the "Default Judgment"). UF 24; GI 24.
Debtor successfully appealed the Default J and incurred $196,055.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,188.64 in costs. UF 25-27; GI 25-27.
After obtaining the Default Judgment, but before it was reversed on appeal, Beitler served motions for charging liens against Debtor’s interest Mission Medical Investors, LLC and Westcliff Investors, LLC. UF 28; GI 28. After Debtor filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy, the hearings on the motions for charging orders were stayed. UF 30-31; GI 30-31. But the mere filing and service of the motions for charging order created unperfected liens against Debtor’s interests in the two limited liability companies, so Debtor filed a summary judgment motion seeking to avoid the liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
544. UF 32-33; GI 32-33. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment and avoided the charging liens. UF 34; GI 34.
As a result, Debtor incurred an additional $80,395.00 in attorneys’ fees avoiding Beitler’s unperfected charging liens. UF 35; GI 35.
Summary Judgment Standard
A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and establishing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to those matters upon which it has the burden of proof. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The opposing party must make an
2:00 PM
affirmative showing on all matters placed in issue by the motion as to which it has the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 324. The substantive law will identify which facts are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id. A factual dispute is genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. The court must view the evidence presented on the motion in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Id.
In the absence of any disputed material facts, the inquiry shifts to whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Furthermore, where intent is at issue, summary judgment is seldom granted. See, Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1489 (9th Cir. 1996),
cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 48 (1997).
The Second Claim For Relief- Legal Malpractice
"The elements of a cause of action in tort for professional negligence are (1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence." Budd v. Nixen, 6 Cal.3d 195, 200 (1971), superseded on other grounds by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.6.
Turning to the elements:
Defendants Owed Debtor a Professional Duty of Care
Expert Testimony Is Not Required
As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue that Debtors were required to provide expert witness testimony to establish a duty and breach of duty.
See, Opp’n, p. 17:22-18:20. This argument is unpersuasive. Ordinarily, expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care for an attorney and determine whether that standard was breached. Wright v. Williams
2:00 PM
(1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 802, 810. However, "California law does not require an expert witness to prove professional malpractice in all circumstances. In professional malpractice cases, expert opinion testimony is required to prove or disprove that the defendant performed in accordance with the prevailing standard of care, except in cases where the negligence is obvious to laymen" Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., 32 Cal.App.5th 637, 644-45 (2019) (reversing summary judgment that was granted in favor of defendant real estate brokers, in part, because plaintiffs had not used an expert witness to prove an element of professional negligence claim).
"[A] judge may resort to expert testimony to establish the standard of care when that standard is not a matter of common knowledge... or where the attorney is practicing in a specialized field...However, Rosenthal's numerous, blatant and egregious violations of attorney responsibility were not breaches of legal technicalities for which expert testimony is required. They were violations of professional standards; standards which the trial court was compelled to notice." Day v. Rosenthal, 170 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 1147 (Ct.
App. 1985) superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in Englebrick v. Worthington Industries, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016)(excluding expert witness testimony regarding legal ethics).
Second, as detailed below, the a duty of care arose, as a matter of law, due to the undisputed fact that Defendants were Debtor’s co-counsel. "The standards governing an attorney's ethical duties are conclusively established by the Rules of Professional Conduct." Day, supra 1147. Thus, the Court should overrule the argument that expert witness is required.
Defendants, As Debtor’s Co-Counsel, Owed a Duty of Care
Defendants represented Debtor in the Beitler Litigation. UF 1, GI. Thus, an attorney-client relationship existed between Defendants and Debtor. "An attorney owes a professional duty of care to every person with whom that attorney has an attorney-client relationship." Streit v. Covington & Crowe, 82 Cal. App. 4th 441, 446, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 193, 197 (2000). Thus, Defendants owed Debtor the duty of care.
2:00 PM
Defendants argue that they did not owe a duty of care to Debtor
because Chapman was the lead attorney, that they only played a supporting role, and that Debtor consented to such arrangement is unpersuasive. There is no question that co-counsel may delineate tasks as they see fit. Wells Fargo & Co. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 25 Cal. 2d 37, 43 (1944)(" If the attorney of record, however, associates another attorney with him, it rests with them to divide the duties concerning the conduct of the cause."). However, the argument is "[w]hether the attorney was selected directly by the client or associated by the attorney of record, that [attorney-client] relationship exists. Streit, 82 Cal. App. 4th at 446–47. Thus, both co-counsel jointly owe the duty of care to the client and are "jointly liable to client for any wrongful conduct by associated attorney." Id. at 445.
In Streit, a legal malpractice case, the issue was whether a special appearance attorney, appearing on behalf of the attorney of record, owed a duty of care to the client. Id. at 444. The special appearance attorney attempted to distinguish between counsel associating for the entire case versus counsel associating for a single hearing, with no attorney-client relationship arising the later context. Id. at 445. The California court of appeal rejected this argument, recognizing that the attorney-client relationship arises even from a "simple association for a particular case" and that the special appearance attorney’s argument was "a distinction only of degree, not of kind, Id. at 446. "[W]hatever the allocation between them, both attorneys have an attorney-client relationship with the litigant they represent until that association is terminated." Id.
As explained by the California Court of Appeal:
California law generally allows an attorney of record to associate with another attorney and to divide the duties of conducting the case... This does not mean, however, that an associated attorney whose name appears on all filings in a case and who is served with all documents filed by the other side need not know anything about the case with which he or she is associated. Nor should an associated attorney whose name appears on all filings be able to avoid liability by intentionally failing to learn anything about a case[.]"
2:00 PM
Cole v. Patricia A. Meyer & Assocs., APC, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1095, 1117, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 646, 664 (2012)(finding that associated counsel could not avoid malicious prosecution liability by claiming ignorance of merits of allegations made by lead counsel because its "specific role in the action was never triggered").
Thus, whether Defendants received timely notice of Chapman’s disassociation is irrelevant. Defendants, independent of Chapman, owed Debtor the duty of care at all times relevant as Debtor’s co-counsel.
Defendants Breached Their Duty
"‘In addressing breach of duty, "the crucial inquiry is whether [the attorney’s] advice was so legally deficient when it was given that he [or she] may be found to have failed to use ‘such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and exercise in the performance of the tasks which they undertake.’ Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 357 (2009).
California Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 3-500 (in effect at the time) provided that, "A member shall keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the employment or representation, including promptly complying with reasonable requests for information and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep the client so informed." Also, former RPC 3-110 stated that, "A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence." See also, RPC 1-100 ("The following rules are intended to regulate professional conduct of members of the State Bar through discipline... These rules together with any standards adopted by the Board of Governors pursuant to these rules shall be binding upon all members of the State Bar.).
Here, the undisputed facts indicate that Defendants had notice of the Motion to Compel because it was served on Samini and the Samini Firm.
See, Debtor RJN, Ex. 7, p. 244. Moreover, Defendants had actual notice of the Motion because Hoesly emailed Chapman about the hearing and assumed that Chapman was handling the matter. See, Hoesly Decl., ¶16 and
2:00 PM
Ex. D, bates stamp p. 005491. Samini was copied on the email. Id. The clerk of the Court served the notice of the May 24, 2016 Order on the Samini Firm and Chapman, but not on Debtor. UF 10, 11; GI 10, 11. And Defendants did not inform Debtor of the May 24, 2016 Order or the Deposition. UF 12; GI 12. As a result, Debtor and Defendants did not appear at the Deposition. UF 13-14; GI 13-14.
Expert witness testimony is not required to find that Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to "keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the...representation" by failing to inform Debtor that Debtor had been ordered to appear at the Deposition. And because Defendants admit in this proceeding that they did not inform Debtor of the May 24, 2016 Order, see, UF 12-14; GI 12-14, the Court is not required to find that Defendants made a judicial admission in their pleadings and oral argument during the Sanctions Motion litigation.
Similarly, failing to oppose the Motion to Compel, failing to include Debtor’s declaration in opposition to the Sanctions Motion, failing to seek a continuance or offer Debtor to testify at the hearing Debtor argument does not, in the court's view, require expert testimony.
The Breach Caused Debtor’s Damages
"In a legal malpractice action where... there is a combination of causes, none of which is sufficient without the others to have caused the harm, the test for causation is the "but for" test: but for the defendant's conduct, the harm would not have occurred." Yanez v. Plummer, 221 Cal. App. 4th 180, 186 (2013).
As further explained by California court of appeal, "A defendant's negligent conduct may combine with another factor to cause harm; if a defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm, then the defendant is responsible for the harm; a defendant cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm; but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred
2:00 PM
without that conduct." Id. at 187.
"In a legal malpractice action, causation is an issue of fact for the jury to decide except in those cases where reasonable minds cannot differ; in those cases, the trial court may decide the issue itself as a matter of law." Id.
Debtor Has Not Demonstrated the Absence of a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Regarding Damages
A plaintiff victimized by legal malpractice may recover as tort damages the attorneys’ fees paid to a second attorney "to the extent that such fees compensated that [second] attorney for his efforts to extricate plaintiff from the effect of [the first attorney’s] negligence." Budd, 6 Cal.3d at 202. "In particular, recoverable damages include ‘the expense of retaining another attorney’ when reasonably necessary to ‘attempt to avoid or minimize the consequences of the former attorney’s negligence.’) Oasis West Realty, LLC
v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811, 826 (2011)(citation omitted).
Here, as a result of Defendants’ breaches, Debtor argues that he suffered $277,639.14 in damages due to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to appeal the Default Judgment and avoiding the charging liens. Defendants do not contest that Debtor incurred fees and costs, but Defendants have raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the amount of damages. Relying on the expert opinion of Herb Fox, Defendants argue that the alleged damages in this action are grossly inflated because $199,055 in legal fees and costs to appeal the Default Judgment, attributable to 389.3 hours that four attorneys and two paralegals spent on the appeal, is excessive. See, Herb Fox Decl.
Debtor’s first counterargument is that because the Court approved the Shulman Firm’s fee application in the main bankruptcy case, and Defendant’s counsel received notice of the fee application, the Court has already determined that the Shulman Firm’s fees are reasonable. Effectively then, Debtor is arguing collateral estoppel which is unpersuasive because the issues are not identical. Debtor’s malpractice damage amount were not at issue when the Court ruled on allowance of the Shulman Firm’s fees within the context of § 330.
2:00 PM
And as for Debtor’s next argument- that Debtor’s attorney’s fees and
costs were reasonable under California’s lodestar method, see Reply, p. 28-30, this argument supports Defendants because it demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Defendants, Debtor has therefore failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to damages.
The Third Claim for Relief- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of that duty and damages." Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon, 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1509 (2008). "The scope of an attorney’s fiduciary duty may be determined as a matter of law based on the Rules of Professional Conduct which, ‘together with statutes and general principles relating to other fiduciary relationships, all help define the duty component of the fiduciary duty which an attorney owes to his [or her] client.’" Stanley, supra, at 1087.
Defendants Owed Debtor A Fiduciary Duty
As indicated above, because Defendants were Debtor’s attorney, a fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Debtor arose. See UF 1-3; GI 1-3; Afont v. Poynter Law Grp., 2018 WL 6136147, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018)(" "Fiduciary duty arises in an attorney-client context.").
Debtor Has Not Demonstrated the Absence of a Genuine Issue of Material Fact as to Breach of Fiduciary Duty
"Breach of fiduciary duty is a concept that is ‘separate and distinct from traditional professional negligence but which still comprises legal malpractice.’" Afont, supra, at *6. Thus, "fiduciary duty claims cannot arise from the exact same facts as claims for legal malpractice[.]" Id. at *7 (granting summary judgment to legal malpractice defendants "because the allegations underlying the fiduciary duty claim are duplicative of those underlying the legal malpractice claim."). In this case, Debtor has not demonstrated the absence of genuine issue as to a material fact regarding
2:00 PM
breach of fiduciary duties because Debtor’s undisputed facts are duplicative for both the legal malpractice and the breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Moreover, the reasonable of the attorneys fees and costs raise an issue of material fact that must be determined at trial.
Debtor Has Not Demonstrated the Absence of a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Regarding Damages
Because Debtor claims the same damages for the breach of the fiduciary as the legal malpractice claim for relief, the discussion above regarding Debtor’s failure to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to damages is applicable here. Moreover, the reasonable of the attorneys fees and costs raise an issue of material fact that must be determined at trial.
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
Debtor's Evidentiary Objection to Declaration of Babak Samini
Objection # Ruling
Sustain. FRE 701, 702
Sustain. FRE 701, 702
Sustain. FRE 701, 702
Overrule
2:00 PM
Sustain as to "It is my understanding that Chapman was a respected and seasoned litigagor. FRE 602 Overrule as to the balance
Sustain as to first sentence only. FRE 602; Overrule as to second sentence.
Overrule
Overrule
Overrule
Sustain as to "this would make little sense . . . the most litigation experience" Argumentative Overrule as to the balance
Sustain. Speculative.
Sustain. FRE 801
Overrule
Sustain. FRE 801
Overrule
Overrule
Overrule
Sustain. Reference to the "Samini firm" necessarily includes
persons other than the declarant. FRE 801, 602
Sustain. Reference to the "Samini firm" necessarily includes
persons other than the declarant. FRE 801, 602
Sustain. Speculative
Sustain. Hearsay as to this declarant.
Sustain. Hearsay as to this declarant
Sustain. FRE 801
Sustain. FRE 801
Sustain. Speculative
2:00 PM
Sustain. FRE 602
Sustain. Argumentative
Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Matthew Hoesly
Objection # Ruling
1 - 15 Same rulings as for the objections to B. Samini (see above)
Overrule
Sustain as to the first sentence. Speculative Overrule as to the second sentence
Overrule
Overrule
Overrule
Sustain FRE 801
Sustain FRE 801
Sustain FRE 801
Sustain FRE 801
Sustain FRE 801
Overrule
Sustain FRE 602
Debtor(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By Beth Gaschen Alan J Friedman William N Lobel Bobby Samini
2:00 PM
Dean A Ziehl
Defendant(s):
Babak Samini Represented By David Choi
Matthew Hoesly Represented By David Choi
Samini Scheinberg, APC Represented By David Choi
Movant(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By
Gary A Pemberton Alan J Friedman
Plaintiff(s):
John Jean Bral Represented By
Gary A Pemberton Alan J Friedman
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01192 Casey v. Moore et al
FR: 1-10-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19; 9-12-19; 11-21-19
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Adversary Entered 11/22/19 in Main Case 16-12110- mp (12/4/19)
November 21, 2019
Continue status conference to December 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. as a holding date in light of the court's approval of the parties' settlement agreement on November 19, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
Debtor(s):
Stuart Moore (USA) Ltd. Represented By William M Burd Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Defendant(s):
Nobie Moore Pro Se
Andrew Moore Pro Se
9:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas H. Casey Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey Jeffrey S Shinbrot Jeffrey I Golden
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Docket 138
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Dismiss adversary proceeding due to failure of Plaintiff's counsel to comply with this court's final order at the August 22, 2019 pretrial conference regarding the deadlines for the preparation, finalization and filing of the joint pretrial stipulation. Counsel has a history in this adversary proceeding of presenting substandard pleadings in a tardy matter. Counsel was permitted one final opportunity to timely file a proper pretrial stipulation and failed to do so. The court court is unpersuaded by the declarations of Counsel and her paralegal regarding the reasons for the most recent failure to comply. The court incorporates by reference below its prior tentative rulings as a further basis for dismissing the adversary proceeding.
May 7, 2019
Court's Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
A demand for jury trial has been made. Each party is required indicate whether they consent or do not consent to the jury trial being conducted in this court. Absent 100% consent by all parties, the jury trial must be held in District Court. Statements re consent or nonconsent to this court conducting the jury trial must be filed with the court by May 21, 2019.
The facts to which Defendant Russell Wallace admitted to in his answer should be reflected in the Admitted Facts Section of the Stipulation.
9:30 AM
Re Section (c)(1) of the Issues of Law, why must a determination be made at trial re whether Mr. Redman and Mr. Martin breached their fiduciary duties to 29 Prime when defaults have been entered against both gentlemen?
Why isn't Ms. Fardi ready for trial? The reason(s) should have been set forth in the Stipuation.
Any motions in limine need to be filed no later than June 18, 2019 and scheduled for hearing no later than July 16, 2019.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
August 22, 2019
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation filed 8/16/19:
Who has signed off on the JPS. No signatures for either of the remaining defendants, Russell Wallace or Haleh Fardi. Did either of them participate in the preparation of this JPS?
The JPS is supposed to include a section on all admitted facts that require no proof. So, why does that section include the statement that Ms. Fardi "disputes" the admitted facts? That would make them NOT admitted. Which facts does she actually dispute?
Why does the admitted facts section include Nos. 13, 18 - 48 which all appear to be DISPUTED FACTS????
Why does (f) state that plaintiff "intends to file a motion in limine" when such a motion was already filed as of August 16, 2019, the date the JPS was submitted?
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
November 7, 2019
Continue the Pretrial Conference to December 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed Due to the Inability of Plaintiff to Properly Prosecute This Adversary Proceeding. The OSC hearing shall take place on Dec. 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Plaintiff's counsel has failed to timely comply with a strict order of this court re the service of an amended joint pretrial stipulation -- once again causing further delay and confusion for the
9:30 AM
defendants. The apologies offered are shallow and of no moment. The pretrial conference has previously been continued twice due to counsel's inability to present a proper, coherent and timely pretrial stipulation. Enough is enough.
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett Christine D Barker
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01226 Marshack v. Wallace et al
Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Derivative; (2) Constructive Trust
(Advanced from 6-14-18)
FR: 6-7-18; 7-19-18; 12-20-18; 5-2-19; 5-7-19; 8-22-19; 11-7-19
Docket 47
- NONE LISTED -
July 19, 2018
The following discovery schedule applies to Plaintiff and Defendant Haleh Fardi:
Discovery Cut-off Date: Oct. 19, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Nov. 16, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: Dec. 20, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to Lodge Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Dec. 6, 2018
Deadline for Plaintiff to move for entry of default judgments as to non-answering
defendants: Sept. 21, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
May 7, 2019
9:30 AM
Court's Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation:
A demand for jury trial has been made. Each party is required indicate whether they consent or do not consent to the jury trial being conducted in this court. Absent 100% consent by all parties, the jury trial must be held in District Court. Statements re consent or nonconsent to this court conducting the jury trial must be filed with the court by May 21, 2019.
The facts to which Defendant Russell Wallace admitted to in his answer should be reflected in the Admitted Facts Section of the Stipulation.
Re Section (c)(1) of the Issues of Law, why must a determination be made at trial re whether Mr. Redman and Mr. Martin breached their fiduciary duties to 29 Prime when defaults have been entered against both gentlemen?
Why isn't Ms. Fardi ready for trial? The reason(s) should have been set forth in the Stipuation.
Any motions in limine need to be filed no later than June 18, 2019 and scheduled for hearing no later than July 16, 2019.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
August 22, 2019
Comments re the Joint Pretrial Stipulation filed 8/16/19:
Who has signed off on the JPS. No signatures for either of the remaining defendants, Russell Wallace or Haleh Fardi. Did either of them participate in the preparation of this JPS?
The JPS is supposed to include a section on all admitted facts that require no proof. So, why does that section include the statement that Ms. Fardi "disputes" the admitted facts? That would make them NOT admitted. Which facts does she actually dispute?
9:30 AM
Why does the admitted facts section include Nos. 13, 18 - 48 which all appear to be DISPUTED FACTS????
Why does (f) state that plaintiff "intends to file a motion in limine" when such a motion was already filed as of August 16, 2019, the date the JPS was submitted?
Special Note: If at all possible, the court would like for the trustee, Richard Marshack to participate in this hearing.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
November 7, 2019
Continue the Pretrial Conference to December 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed Due to the Inability of Plaintiff to Properly Prosecute This Adversary Proceeding. The OSC hearing shall take place on Dec. 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Plaintiff's counsel has failed to timely comply with a strict order of this court re the service of an amended joint pretrial stipulation -- once again causing further delay and confusion for the defendants. The apologies offered are shallow and of no moment. The pretrial conference has previously been continued twice due to counsel's inability to present a proper, coherent and timely pretrial stipulation. Enough is enough.
December 12, 2019
Take matter off calendar in light of tentative ruling for Calendar #2 dismissing adversary proceeding.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
29 Prime, Inc. Represented By
Richard L Barnett
Defendant(s):
Russell B. Wallace Pro Se
Tony Redman Pro Se
Jason Martin Pro Se
Local Zoom, Inc. Pro Se
OC Listing, Inc. Pro Se
Sky Motorsports, Inc. Pro Se
Haleh Fardi Pro Se
1Network.Com Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Richard A. Marshack Represented By
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Caroline Djang
Rosemary Amezcua-Moll
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01122 M.G.B. Construction, Inc. v. Duerscheidt
FR: 9-12-19; 11-7-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to November 7, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at today's Status Conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
November 7, 2019
9:30 AM
Answer timely filed. Continue status conference to December 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report must be filed by December 3, 2019. (XX)
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at today's hearing are not required.
December 12, 2019
Discovery Cut-off Date: May 1, 2020
Pretrial Conference Date: Jun. 11, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Deadline to File Pretrial Stipulation: May 28, 2020
Special Note: A 727 denial of discharge adversary cannot be settled for the benefit of a single creditor but, rather, settlement proceeds must be turned over to the chapter 7 trustee for distribution to all creditors. In re de Armond, 240 B.R. 51 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1999).
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
Debtor(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Represented By Brian J Soo-Hoo
Defendant(s):
Cassandra Dean Duerscheidt Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
M.G.B. Construction, Inc. Represented By
9:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Scott A Kron
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01193 Richards v. Zech
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing Entered on Main Case 8:19-11677-ES on 10/2/2019 - td (10/2/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Eugene V. Zech Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Alicia Marie Richards Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01192 SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. Banda
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to February 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
A motion for default judgment may self-calendared for the same date/time as the continued Status Conference date. Alternatively, the motion may be filed without a hearing pursuant to the procedure set forth in Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1(o).
The motion for default judgment, supported by evidence, must be served on defendant and defendant's counsel in accordance with Local Rule 9013-1(d).
If the motion for default judgment is not heard by the continued date of the Status Conference, THE ADVERSARY MAY BE DISMISSED at the Status Conference for failure to prosecute.
Debtor(s):
Emma Arroyo Banda Represented By Marlin Branstetter
9:30 AM
Defendant(s):
Emma Arroyo Banda Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL Represented By Paul V Reza
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 9-19-19; 10-17-19; 11-19-19
Docket 80
- NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Grant motion with without 4001(a)(3) waiver and with co-debtor relief.
Special Note: The tentative ruling is to grant the Motion because Debtor did not provide documentary proof of payments he alleges to have made. If Movant is agreeable to a continuance to discuss a resolution, the parties may request a continuance of the hearing at the beginning of the calendar roll call. Available dates are Oct. 10, Oct. 17 and Nov. 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
October 17, 2019
Parties to advise of status of matter.
10:00 AM
November 19, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
December 12, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Ranulfo Figueroa Represented By Sunita N Sood Seema N Sood
Movant(s):
Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC Represented By Mark T. Domeyer Daniel K Fujimoto Caren J Castle
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A.
VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 10-17-19; 11-19-19
Docket 71
- NONE LISTED -
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
November 19, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
December 12, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Daryl John Parks Represented By
Thomas E Brownfield
Movant(s):
U.S. Bank National Association, as Represented By
Kirsten Martinez
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 85
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation)/APO Entered 12/5/2019 - td (12/5/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Cathy Marie Estrella Represented By Amanda G Billyard
Movant(s):
Caliber Home Loans, Inc. Represented By Christina J Khil
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
U.S. BANK N.A. AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2018 SC6 TITLE TRUST
VS. DEBTORS FR: 11-7-19
Docket 47
- NONE LISTED -
November 7, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
November 19, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
December 12, 2019
10:00 AM
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
William R Roman Jr. Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Lorraine Stephanie Roman Pro Se
Movant(s):
U.S. BANK NATIONAL Represented By Diane Weifenbach
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
TODD KURTIN VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 90
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Grant motion with waiver of 4001(b)(3); deny request for prospective relief due to insufficient grounds stated therefor.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Movant, as a judgment creditor, has standing to bring the Motion and has sufficiently presented a colorable claim as correctly analyzed by Movant in his Reply pleading. See, In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). Debtors' arguments to the contrary are rejected as unpersuasive.
The court agrees with Movant that a relief from stay hearing is a summary proceeding that does no adjudicate substantive rights. Id. at 914. See also, In re Palmdale Hills Property LLC , 423 B.R. 655, 665 (9th Cir.BAP 2009) ("There is a ‘tremendous difference between adjudication of the merits and mere consideration of counterclaims and defenses' raised in a motion for stay relief.'”). Debtor is incorrect that his opposition to the Motion "constitutes an informal claim objection." Related Debtors' Supplemental Opposition to RFS
10:00 AM
at p.2 While there is ample legal authority supporting the proposition that a motion for relief from stay may be deemed an informal proof of claim , e.g., In re Fish, 456 B.R. 413 (9th Cir. BAP 2011), the court is aware of no legal authority recognizing an opposition to a relief from stay motion as an informal claim objection and Debtor has cited the court to none. Notably, as to the 510(b) subordination matter, such a matter cannot be resolved through the 502 claim objection process as subordination involves the priority of a claim and not its disallowance.
Mandatory subordination under Section 510(b) does not statutorily disallow a claim but, rather, reprioritizes the order of payment of that claim. Palmdale at 665. That said, subordination could prove to be the functional equivalent of disallowance if estate assets are not sufficient to pay higher priority claims. However, potential prospective functional disallowance cannot be determined in the context of a relief from stay hearing. Further, and perhaps most importantly, in this case, Movant appears to have remedies available to it that other creditors do not. See comment infra.
Debtor argues that Movant only holds a judgment against him and no other entity but provides no explanation for the August 29, 2019 Fourth Amended Judgment ("FAJ") which includes as "Additional Judgment Debtors" Heritage Colorado LLC ("Heritage"), TDV Development Corporation ("TDV") and Broadband Nation LLC ("Broadband") (collectively "Additional Judgment Debtors"). Presumably, the Additional Judgment Debtors were added to the FAJ under the equitable remedies of either alter ego or reverse veil piercing. See, e.g., Curci Investments LLC v. Baldwin, 14 Cal.App.5th 214, 222 (2017) ("Judgment creditor was not per se precluded from reverse piercing corporate veil to add limited liability company (LLC), in which judgment debtor held 99 percent interest"). Debtors have not presented any evidence that the relief sought by the Motion involves property of any of the bankruptcy estates. While reverse veil piercing allows a judgment creditor to pursue the assets of a corporate entity to satisfy the debt of the individual judgment debtor, it does not legally follow that such assets belong to the judgment debtor. Stated otherwise, the debtor may not affirmatively utilize the equitable remedy for its own benefit.
The court does not find the Supplemental Opposition persuasive as to the
10:00 AM
argument that the pending preference action filed by Debtors constitutes a basis for denying the Motion. Even if Debtors are ultimately successful in avoiding the subject liens, Movant would continue to have an unsecured claim.
CAVEAT TO THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the court has misinterpreted the Motion and Reply and Movant is actually asserting that the assets of the Additional Judgment Creditors were in fact monies belonging to one or more of Debtors which were funneled through the Additional Judgment Creditors, such assets could be property of the estate and the court might be inclined to deny the Motion.
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
Movant(s):
Todd Kurtin Represented By
Lewis R Landau Edward O Morales
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 11
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Joel Vasquez Lopez Represented By Randy Alexander
Movant(s):
Phillia Yi Represented By
Robert A Krasney
10:00 AM
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Dwight Wayne Berger Represented By Anerio V Altman
Movant(s):
Gateway One Lending & Finance Represented By
Karel G Rocha
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
[WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 137
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Bryson N Nazareno Represented By Edward A Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, ATTORNEY FOR WENETA
M.A. KOSMALA, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 135
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Bryson N Nazareno Represented By Edward A Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
FR: 8-22-19; 9-19-19; 10-17-19; 11-19-19
Docket 90
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 Entered 12/6/2019 - td (12/6/2019)
August 22, 2019
The court is inclined to sustain the objection as to accrued interest and to overrule the objection as to the principal debt, i.e., $120,000.
The parties are to address the following issues: Debtor:
This court has already abstained from hearing the merits of case involving this loan in light of a pending state court action that Debtor initiated prepetition involving multiple plaintiffs and defendants. Debtor is to advise the court re the status of the state court litigation.
The court finds Debtor's argument that she doesn't owe anything to Claimant because she "never received the money," strains credulity in light of the joint venture agreement she entered into regarding the acquisition of the Sea Island property and her subsequent acknowledgement of the purchase. See Claimant's Opposition, Declaration of Angel Santiago and exhibits attached thereto; Declaration of Michael Van Ness, Exhibit 1.
10:30 AM
Debtor's Objection does not explain or provide any legal analysis regarding relevance of Claimant's lack of a real estate license. She simply declares Claimant is not exempt from usury laws without any legal analysis. The court declines to do Debtor's research for her.
As of July 26, 2019, it appears Claimant is active and no longer suspended.
Even if the interest is usurious, the principal balance remains. Further, even if, because of the lack of notice, the note has not yet matured, the principal debt remains and has to be treated through Debtor's chapter 13 plan.
Claimant
Claimant's assertion of the nonapplicability of Cal. Civ. Code 2966 is unpersuasive in light of the fact that the note itself expressly states that "this note is subject to Section 2966 . . . which provides that the holder . . . shall give written notice to the trustor . . . at least 90 and not more than 150 days before any balloon payment is due." Thus, whether or not Section 2966 would have otherwise applied or not, Claimant clearly intended to provide the protections of Section 2966 by including it in the note that it presumably drafted. Absent notice given pursuant to the note, it has not yet matured.
The note is clearly usurious under California Constitution Article XV Section 1 as it exceeds 10% per annum. Claimant has the ultimate burden of proof and has not provided any basis for it being exempt from the usury law.
The court is not persuaded that Debtor's claim is time-barred. See Debtor's reply.
Special note: This court's ruling as to this claim objection cannot be used by or against any person or entity other than Debtor and Premier Home Solutions, Inc. in any other state or federal action. Further any ruling by this court regarding the subject proof of claim is without prejudice to Premier
10:30 AM
seeking prejudgment interest at the legal rate once notice is properly given under the note.
September 19, 2019
Parties to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter. If additional time to memorialize the settlement is needed, a final continuance may be requested during the tentative ruling roll call prior to the hearing.
Available hearing dates: Oct. 10, 2019 and Oct. 17, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.
October 17, 2019
Parties to appear and advise the court re the status of this matter.
November 19, 2019
Debtor's counsel must appear for today's hearing. The ch. 13 trustee filed an opposition to the motion to compromise on Oct. 23, 2019 and Oct. 31, 2019 but Debtor has not set the matter for hearing as required by LBR 9013-1(o).
Debtor(s):
Daphne Alt Represented By
Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 58
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Laura Marie Kroh Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01035 SJO Investments, LLC v. Gilbert-Bonnaire
Docket 22
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order
Entered 11/22/2019 (XX) - td (11/22/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Represented By
Andrew Edward Smyth
Defendant(s):
Paula Gilbert-Bonnaire Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
SJO Investments, LLC Represented By Jon Alan Enochs
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 10-17-19
Docket 88
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Deny approval of disclosure statement. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Service: Notice was not properly served per FRBP 2002(b) which requires 28 days notice of the time to file objections re approval of the disclosure statement or LBR 3017-1(a) which requires 42 days notice of the hearing on approval of the disclosure statement (28 + 14). Here, the amended disclosure statement was filed only 19 days prior to the hearing.
Merits: There are numerous inconsistencies, errors and misleading information in the disclosure statement.
DS, p. 5:13: Re "Debtor is informed and believes that " -- Doesn't
Debtor know what the claims are related to? What is the purpose of "informed and believes?"
DS, p. 6:3: Delete "informed and believes." Isn't it a fact that the cash is encumbered by Wells Fargo's lien?
DS, p.7:7-9: Run-on sentence. Add a period after "will be owed" and
10:30 AM
begin a new sentence with "In an abundance . . . "
3a. DS, p.7:22-25: The treatment of the FTB appears to be unconfirmable on its face -- priority tax claims must be paid in accordance with 1129(a)(9)(C) (regular payments in full within 5 years of the petition date). Here, the FTB doesn't get paid until Debtor recovers on the insurance claim. However, Debtor cryptically states at p. 8:12-15 that it shall "in its sole discretion, prosecute the Liberty Mutual Claims and if any recovery is received" it will be disbursed per the plan. This treatment does not come close to satisfying 1128(a)(9)(C). Further, Debtor states that the FTB claim is the "sole" priority claim filed, but this is later contradicted on p. 10:14-17 where Debtor states that the IRS has also filed a priority proof of claim (in an undisclosed amount).
DS, p. 8:16-19 and Plan, p. 5:15-19: contradictory amounts described for the principal amount owed, $372,648.22 vs. $350,000.
5. DS, p. 8:12-13, 9:19-20/ Plan, p. 5:11-12 and p. 6:12-13: collateral is described as all of Debtor’s prepetition assets, but those assets were previously sold per the Sale Order. Thus, WF is now secured by the $99,000 cash on hand and the Liberty Mutual Claims only.
DS, p. 8:20-24: After the $5,000 payment to WF, the treatment states that the next 40% will be unencumbered, with 10% of the 40% going to pay unsecured creditors. What will the other 30% be used for?
DS, p. 8:25-9:1; Plan, p. 5:24-28: states that loan ending in 8121-42 will be paid in full, but it is unclear whether this is the underlying loan for Class 1 (business loan agreement) or Class 2 (revolving business line of credit).
DS, p. 9:14-17 and Plan, p. 6:7-10: missing the "40%" and "Out" terms in paragraph describing treatment of Class 2.
DS, p. 9:25-10:2 and Plan, p. 6:18-22: the claim is secured and the Plan proposes to treat the Class 3 claim as unsecured under § 506(a), but Debtor doesn't even describe the collateral , the amount of the claim and Debtor's valuation.
10:30 AM
DS, p. 10:14-18 and Plan, p. 7:8-11: the IRS has filed a priority tax proof of claim no. 4 in the amount of $71,716.59 (which should be disclosed in the DS) but the Plan effectively does not provide treatment for the IRS claim. The DS and Plan state that once returns are filed, no amounts will owed to the IRS but if amounts are owed, then the IRS claim will be paid as a priority tax claim from the Carve Out. Debtor does not disclose the tax years for which returns are due or when it will be filing the returns. Further, the treatment suffers from the same problems with 1129(a)(9)(C) as the FTB claim. The claim is presumed valid until objected to and, therefore must be provided for in full. Currently, the amount of the claim renders the plan unconfirmable.
DS, p. 10:24 and Plan, p. 7:18: erroneously lists Class 4 as unimpaired.
12 DS, p. 10:26-28 and Exhibit A: Per the exhibit, the total amount of Class 4 general unsecured claims is $2,006,410.04. However,this amount only reflects filed claims and does not include general unsecured claims that were scheduled as undisputed, noncontingent, and liquidated by Debtor. Per the claims bar date notice, creditors whose claims were so listed on the schedules were not required to file a proof of claim.
13. DS, p. 11:13-15 and Plan, p. 7:25-8:6: the names of the interest holders of Debtor are not provided.
14 DS, p. 13:26-27 and Plan, p. 10:11: the date for filing a claim after lease or contract rejection needs to be updated in the Plan (listed as August 22, 2019 in the DS and June 1, 2017 in the Plan).
Plan, p. 10:8: this line refers to "Section {I.B.3.} of this document for the specific date." However, no such section exists in the Plan. This section is in the DS, and the Plan should be amended to refer to the DS.
DS, p. 13:-23;Plan, p. 10:14-28: The DS states no leases/contracts will be assumed and all leases/contracts will be rejected. However, the very next sentence at line 15 states that "if you are a party to a lease or contract to be assumed and you object to the assumption . . . . " This doesn't make sense and should be deleted.
10:30 AM
DS, p.18:8-9: The DS erroneously states that "the Plan proposes to pay all creditors in full on the Effective Date. This is not true.
DS, p. 25-27 (Exhibit A): the claims are listed as "Class 1" but per the Plan, general unsecured creditors are listed under Class 4.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
FR: 5-16-19; 6-13-19; 9-12-19; 11-7-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
May 16, 2019
Continue status conference to June 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing on UST's motion to dismiss case. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
June 13, 2019
Claims Bar Date: 8/22/19 (notice to creditors by 6/20/19)
Deadline to file Plan/DS: 8/29/19 (no extensions will be granted)
Continued Status Conf: 9/12/19 at 10:30 a.m. (XX)
Updated Status Report due: 8/29/19 -- waived if Plan/DS timely filed
Note: If the parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this status conference are not required -- the court will issue its own order re the same.
10:30 AM
September 12, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. to allow Debtor to notice a hearing date on approval of its Disclosure Statement. (XX)
Special Note: This court does not set hearings on approval of disclosure statements. Counsel for the debtor must self-calendar hearings.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee. It is Debtor's responsibility to ascertain its compliance status prior to the hearing.
November 7, 2019
Continue status conference to December 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m., same date/time as hearing re approval of first amended disclosure statement. Updated status report not required. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 12, 2019
No tentative ruling. Disposition will depend upon the outcome of #19 on today's calendar.
Debtor(s):
SPN Investments Inc Represented By Jeffrey S Shinbrot
10:30 AM
Docket 19
- NONE LISTED -
December 12, 2019
Grant the Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Guadalupe Alejo Represented By Sundee M Teeple
Joint Debtor(s):
Gloria Alejo Represented By
Sundee M Teeple
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 11-19-19
Docket 25
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation (11 U.S.C. §109(g)) Hearing Entered 11/27/2019 - td (12/5/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paul D Blanco Represented By Joseph A Weber Fritz J Firman
Movant(s):
Camino Center, a California limited Represented By
Leonard M Shulman
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 53
December 12, 2019
December 12, 2019
Grant the Motion in the amount of $7,553.36 as to The Wall Law Office and
$1,000 as to the Law Office of Tom Chun for total attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $8,553.36 as to petitioning creditors Park and Hong jointly and severally; and punitive damages in the amount of $10,000 as to Park only.
The fees, costs and punitive damages are payable on or before March 13, 2020.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
On September 4, 2019, an involuntary chapter 7 petition was filed against former alleged debtor Beom & Eun Investment, LLC dba Imperial Health Center, dba Imperial Health Spa ("Debtor") by Daniel E. Park Law Corporation ("Park Law") and Linda Hong ("Hong")(collectively, "Petitioning Creditors").
L.A. Pacific Plaza, LLC ("Landlord") is the landlord for real property located in Garden Grove, California where Debtor’s spa business was located. Landlord filed a motion for relief from stay for unlawful detainer on September 9, 2019, which was granted by order entered October 3, 2019. [dkt#18], which was denied by order entered the same date [dkt. #29].
10:30 AM
Also, on October 27, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause
why the involuntary chapter 7 petition should not be dismissed for Petitioning Creditors’ lack of good faith and standing (the "OSC")[dkt. #27].
The court held a hearing on the OSC on October 3, 2019 and dismissed the involuntary case, retaining jurisdiction to hear any motion under § 303(i) (the "Dismissal Order")[dkt. #46]. The Dismissal Order attached the Court’s tentative ruling.
On November 1, 2109, Debtor filed the instant motion, under § 303(i), seeking $15,000 in attorneys’ fees and $100,000 in punitive damages (the "Motion")[dkt. #53].
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under § 303(i)(1)
Debtor first requests attorneys fees in the amount of $14,944 plus additional estimated fees for the preparation and prosecution of the Motion. Petitioning Creditors counter that attorney’s fees are discretionary and based on upon the totality of circumstances, the Court should decline to award the fees because Petitioning Creditors have acknowledged that they made a mistake, Hong voluntarily dismissed her Petition before the first hearing in this case, Petitioning Creditors believed that they creditors of Debtor and that the requirements of an involuntary bankruptcy were met, and they were desperate to preserve the bankruptcy estate. Petitioning Creditors’ counter arguments are unpersuasive.
Under § 303(i)(1), "If the court dismisses a petition under this section other than on consent of all petitioners and the debtor, and if the debtor does not waive the right to judgment under this subsection, the court may grant judgment... against the petitioners and in favor of the debtor for... costs; or... a reasonable attorney’s fee[.]"
Bad faith is not a prerequisite for awarding fees under § 303(i)(1).
Higgins v. Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., 379 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir. 2004). A rebuttable presumption arises that reasonable fees and costs are authorized "when an involuntary petition is dismissed on some ground other than consent of the parties and the debtor has not waived the right to recovery[.]"
10:30 AM
Id. at 707. Thus, "any petitioning creditor in an involuntary case should expect to pay the debtor’s attorney’s fees and costs if the petition is dismissed." Id.; see, In re Macke Int'l Trade, Inc., 370 B.R. 236, 255 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007)("[I]n the Ninth Circuit, the presumption is that, upon dismissal of an involuntary petition, totality of the circumstances, that factors exist which overcome the presumption, and support the disallowance of fees.’ " Higgins, supra at 707. Courts " should consider the following factors before awarding attorney's fees and costs under § 303(i)(1): 1) ‘the merits of the involuntary petition,’ 2) ‘the role of any improper conduct on the part of the alleged debtor,’ 3) ‘the reasonableness of the actions taken by the petitioning creditors,’ and 4) ‘the motivation and objectives behind filing the petition.’ " Id. "Although definitive in most cases, this list is not exhaustive, and a bankruptcy court may, in its discretion, choose to consider other material factors it deems relevant." A bankruptcy court’s award of attorneys’ fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion or erroneous application of the law. Id. at 705.
As a preliminary matter, Debtor here has demonstrated that the involuntary petition was not dismissed by consent of all parties and Debtor. Notwithstanding Hong’s voluntary dismissal of her petition, § 303(i)(1) requires dismissal by all petitioners in order to avoid implicating § 303(i)(1). The involuntary petition was ultimately dismissed in response to the Court’s OSC regarding bad faith. Debtor also did not waive the right to fees or costs under § 303(i) because the Dismissal Order specifically reserved the Court’s jurisdiction to hear any § 303(i) motions, and Petitioning Creditors have not argued as such. The Dismissal Order, and all of its relevant findings, was entered on October 3, 2019 and is now a final order. Demonstration of Petitioning Creditor’s bad faith is not a requirement under § 303(i)(1).
"Although the burden of proof is on the petitioning creditors to justify the denial of attorneys' fees, "if attorney's fees are allowed, the evidentiary burden to establish the reasonableness of the amount awarded rests upon the putative debtor." "In re Anmuth Holdings LLC, 600 B.R. 168, 190 (Bankr.
E.D.N.Y. 2019)(analyzing award of attorneys’ fees and costs using the lodestar method). "The customary method for assessing an attorney's fee application in bankruptcy is the ‘lodestar,’ under which ‘the number of hours reasonably expended’ is multiplied by "a reasonable hourly rate" for the person providing the services." In re Eliapo, 468 F.3d 592, 598 (9th Cir.
10:30 AM
2006)(applying lodestar method within the context of § 330). "The court retains broad discretion to fashion a fee award under § 303(i)." In re S. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc., 608 F.3d 456, 464 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2010).
Based on the time spent by Debtor’s bankruptcy counsel, William J. Wall ("Wall"), and its general counsel, Tom S. Chun ("Chun"), Debtor has carried its burden to establish that most of the fees and costs claimed are reasonable and permissible. Debtor has provided declarations for both Wall (20 years of experience) and Chun (30 years of business litigation experience) which details their qualifications. See, Mot., p. 9-12 and Ex. 2. Wall has submitted a declaration and time records sufficient to support an award of attorneys and costs as to his firm in the amount of $7,553.36.
However, the court will not award additional fees and costs to Wall on account of the estimated preparation and prosecution of the Motion. Such fees and costs are not permitted in this Circuit. See, In re Southern California Sunbelt at 466-467. Chun, on the other hand, submitted a declaration regarding his fees but did not provide time records. Accordingly, the court cannot fully assess the reasonableness of his fees but will allow $1,000 (approximately two hours) for time spent assisting in the defense of the involuntary proceeding given his long history representing Debtor. Time spent explaining the ruling to Debtor and discussing future courses of action are not permissible.
Having established that the involuntary petition was not dismissed by consent of all parties and the reasonableness of the fees and costs requested, a rebuttable presumption has arisen that Debtor is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under § 303(i)(1).
Based on the totality of the circumstances, except as noted above, Petitioning Creditors have failed to meet their burden to overcome the presumption that attorneys’ fees and costs should not be awarded. First, the involuntary petition had no merit because it was ultimately dismissed per the Court’s OSC.
Second, Petitioning Creditors have not shown that Debtor engaged in any improper conduct. Rather, any assertions by Petitioning Creditors that Debtor has not accounted for funds or did not oppose an unlawful detainer
10:30 AM
action continues to ignore the new legal reality after the Judgment was reversed and that the principals of Debtor (not Hong) are the legal and equitable owners of Debtor.
Third, the actions taken by Petitioning Creditors were not reasonable because they filed an involuntary petition knowing that their claims were subject to a bona fide dispute. As noted by the Court in its Dismissal Order, on the petition date, Petitioning Creditors knew that the Judgment had been reversed. See, Dismissal Order, p. 4 (top of page), ¶3. Under § 303(b)(1), a petitioning creditor must hold a claim that is not the "subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or to amount[.]" Moreover, Petitioning Creditors’ actions were not reasonable because they may actually be debtors, not creditors, of Debtor due to the almost $700,000 paid by the Receiver to Petitioning Creditors on account of the Judgment which no longer exists. Petitioning Creditors continue to "vigorously disput[e]" these payments, i.e., a further admission that Petitioning Creditors’ claims were the subject of a bona fide dispute. See, Opp’n, p. 2, ¶5 (Cianci Decl.).
Fourth, as the Court found in its Dismissal Order, the motivation and purpose of the involuntary petition were: "1) to halt or delay the unlawful detainer action and 2) to prevent the Receiver from turning over Debtor’s assets and business operations to it legal owners...and 3) to prevent the legal owners of Debtor from surrendering the leased premises to the Landlord." Dismissal Order, p. 6 (top of page), ¶9. Thus, the Court found that Petitioning Creditors filed the involuntary petition for the improper purpose of "gaining an advantage over another creditor-Landlord- and over the principals of Debtor." Id.
Punitive Damages
Pursuant to § 303(i)(2), upon a showing of bad faith, the court may award punitive damages even in the absence of actual or compensatory damages In re Southern California Sunbelt Developers, Inc., 608 F.3d 456, 465 (9th Cir. 2010)(affirming that § 303(i)(2) punitive attorney's fees and costs may be awarded to the alleged debtor whether or not the filing was in bad faith.") . The opined that the "Bankruptcy Code specifically authorizes punitive damages ‘even in the absence of or in addition to actual damages.’ "
10:30 AM
In re Wavelength, Inc., 61 B.R. 614, 619 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1986).
The BAP in Wavelength observed that the Bankruptcy Code does not define "bad faith" for purposes of awarding punitive damages under § 303(i)." Wavelength, supra, at 619; In re C & C Jewelry Mfg., Inc., 373 F. App'x 775, 777 (9th Cir. 2010)("Bad faith is measured by an objective test—what a reasonable person would believe.")(citing Wavelength). Thus, within the Ninth Circuit, "Whether a party acted in bad faith is essentially a question of fact... Bad faith should be measured by an ‘objective test’ that asks ‘what a reasonable person would have believed.’ " Wavelength, 61 B.R. at 620.
"A punitive damages award must also be considered in light of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Punitive damages offend due process if an award is grossly excessive in relation to the legitimate interests of punishment and deterrence." Anmuth, 600 B.R. at 203. "The due process inquiry compares the punitive damages awarded to the harm caused by the wrongful act, not merely to the actual damages awarded." Sunbelt, 608 F.3d at 466 (emphasis in original).
In this case, the Court has previously found that the case was filed in bad faith for the improper purpose of "gaining an advantage over another creditor-Landlord- and over the principals of Debtor." Dismissal Order, p. 6 (top of page), ¶9. The Court also found that Petitioning Creditors filed the involuntary petition: "1) to halt or delay the unlawful detainer action and 2) to prevent the Receiver from turning over Debtor’s assets and business operations to it legal owners...and 3) to prevent the legal owners of Debtor from surrendering the leased premises to the Landlord." Id. Moreover, the Court found that Petitioning Creditors knew, at the time of filing the involuntary petition, that their claims were the subject of a bona fide dispute and that they were not eligible to file the involuntary. See Id., p. 4 (top of page), ¶3.
Moreover, while the Petitioning Creditors argue that they "have fallen on their sword" for their mistake, this sincerity of this argument is undermined by the Petitioning Creditors continued insistence that no accounting for the
$400,000 turned over to Debtor is being provided, i.e., the Petitioning Creditors continue to refuse to recognize the effect of the reversed Judgment
10:30 AM
and that the principals of Debtor are the sole legal owners of Debtor. Finally, Petitioning Creditors have failed to address the Court’s finding that they deliberately misled the Court by representing that Hong’s claim was based on the Judgment but failed to make any mention that the Judgment had been reversed as of the petition date, thereby rendering their claims the subject of a bona fide dispute. Accordingly, based on these findings, and the entire record before the Court, see In re Blumer, 95 B.R. 143, 146 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.
1988)("It is well established that a court may take judicial notice of its own records."), the Court finds that no reasonable person would have believed that Petitioning Creditors had undisputed claims against Debtor and that an involuntary petition was warranted.
The court finds that Park instigated the filing of the involuntary petition and did so with a flagrant disregard for ability of he and Hong to meet one of the critical requirements of being a petitioning creditor under 303(b)(1) -- holding a claim that was not the subject of a bona fide dispute. Appallingly, even while admitting that the filing of the involuntary petition was a mistake, he still insists that the bankruptcy was necessary in light of post-dismissal events. The court is completely unpersuaded by Park's arguments in this regard. Events unfolded in state court (e.g., completion of the unlawful detainer, termination of the receivership and turnover of Debtor's assets to its lawful owners) as they should have. None of the post-dismissal circumstances recited by Park warranted or justified a bad faith involuntary petition. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the punitive damages portion of the award should be borne by Park alone.
Debtor(s):
Beom & Eun Investment LLC Represented By William J Wall
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:15-01375 Sotelo et al v. Ramirez et al
Docket 161
OFF CALENDAR: Withdrawal of Motion filed 12/10/19 [dkt. #164] - sb (12/11/19)
Debtor(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
Defendant(s):
Rosalva Ramirez Represented By Marc C Forsythe Charity J Manee
Jose Luis Ramirez Sr Represented By Christopher P Walker
Herman F Cea Pro Se
The Ramirez Family Trust Pro Se
Family Steel Corporation Pro Se
First American Title Insurance Pro Se
2:00 PM
Olimpia Family Trust, Dated Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Mayanin Sotelo Pro Se
Salon Envious, Inc. Pro Se
Aurelio Vera Pro Se
Faviola Vera Pro Se
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 385
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
10:30 AM
Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 389
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
December 17, 2019
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Bruce V. Cook [dkt #s594-2 and 607-3]
Objection #/Para # Ruling:
- ¶ 5 Overruled
- ¶ 10 Sustained as to "The Declaration of Bruce Elieff . . . such Debtor." Overruled as to the balance
- ¶ 11 Overruled
- ¶ 13 Overruled as to first sentence in para. 13; Sustained as to
the balance based on all three objections thereto.
- ¶ 19 Overruled
- ¶ 27 Overruled as to "In the preparation . . . of SCM." Sustained as to the balance. Hearsay;Speculation
- ¶ 28 Sustained as to "Approximately . . . core business." Overruled as to the balance.
- ¶ 32 Sustained. Foundation
- ¶ 34 Overruled
- ¶ 36 Sustained as to "which I understand was owned by
Bruce Elieff." Overruled as to the balance
- ¶ 38 Overruled as to ""To the extent . . . between Argent and
10:30 AM
SCM." Sustained as to the balance.
- ¶ 41 Overruled
- ¶ 46 Overruled
14- 35 Overruled as to Exhibits 1, 7, 8, 9, 15-28, 30, 35, 40, 41 on the basis of Argent's "Response to Plaintiff's
Evidentiary which
Objections to Appendix of Evidence . . ." [dkt #605-5] the court incorporates by reference herein.
Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of George Rizk
Objection #/Para # Ruling
- ¶ 1 Overruled
- ¶ 6 Overruled. Special note: the best evidence objection to the Lehman Bk borders on the absurd.
- ¶ 7 Sustained as to "DE Shaw did not . . .became Argent)". Foundation. Overruled as to the balance
- ¶13 (p.3) Sustained. Foundation as to others' intent.
- ¶13 (p.4) Sustained as to "Rather, the parties . . over time".
Overruled as to the balance.
- ¶ 14 Sustained. Foundation. Hearsay
- ¶ 18 Overruled as to "In negotiating . . . these items." Sustained as the balance as to this declarant only. The Initial Operating Agreement and Exhibits are admitted via Declaration of Bruce Cook, ¶ 21, Exh. 17
10:30 AM
- ¶ 19 Sustained as to this declarant only. See Declaration of Stephan Elieff, ¶ 34, Exh. 27, which are admitted.
9 - 12 Exhs 17,
18, 24 Overruled. See ruling for Declaration of Bruce Cook above.
Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Stephan Elieff
Objection #/Para.# Ruling
- ¶ 3 Overruled
- ¶ 4 Overruled.
- ¶ 8 Sustained. Hearsay
- ¶ 11 Sustained. Foundation; Hearsay 5 - ¶ 12, p. 5:11-16 Sutained. Hearsay
- ¶ 12, p.5-6 Sustained. Hearsay; Speculation
- ¶ 17 Overruled as to testimony and Exh. 19
- ¶ 19 Sustained. Hearsay
- ¶ 20 Sustained. Hearsay
- ¶ 27 Sustained as to "I also understood from SCM . . . as possible". Overrule as to the balance
- ¶ 29 Sustained only as to "which I understood was owned by Bruce Elieff." Foundation. Hearsay
- ¶ 31 Sustained. Hearsay
- ¶ 32 Overruled
- ¶ 35 Sustained only as to "and the parties forming Argent did not intend . . merged or consolidated." Overruled
as to the balance.
- 18; ¶s 36-40 Overruled
19 - 35; Exhs. 6,
15-24, 26-28 Overruled. See rulings on objections to exhibits re
10:30 AM
Bruce Cook Declaration above.
Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Bruce Elieff
Objection #/Para.# Ruling
- ¶ 2 Overruled
- ¶ 5 Overruled. Exh. 6 admitted via Stephan Elieff Declaration -- see ruling above.
3 - 13/ ¶s 7, 9-12,14 Overruled
14 - ¶ 15, p.6-7 Sustained as to "Debtors . . . condition of
SCM". Foundation. Overruled as to balance
15 - ¶ 15, p. 7:2-5 Overruled
- ¶ 17 Overruled
- ¶ 19 Sustained as to "but at yet even more reduced . . ."
Overruled
and "At these reduced rates." Foundation. as to the balance
- ¶ 21 Sustained. Hearsay
- ¶ 22 Sustained. Hearsay
- ¶ 28, p. 11:2-4 Overruled. Propery owner can testify as to its value
- ¶ 28, p. 11:9-10 Sustained. Hearsay
¶ 34 Overruled
- ¶ 37 Overruled
- ¶ 39 Sustained only as to "as funding had not yet been secured . . . such projects." Foundation.
Overrule
as to the balance
- ¶ 40 Overruled
- ¶ 41 Overruled
10:30 AM
- ¶ 45 Sustained as to "SCM did not merge or consolidate
with Argent." Legal conclusion. Overruled as to the balance
- ¶ 48 Overruled
- ¶ 50 Overruled
- ¶ 54 Sustained as to "and from my conversations with Lehman reprresentatives regarding the Projects, it was not Lehman's intent". Hearsay; Speculation Overruled as to the balance
- ¶ 56 Sustained. Foundation; hearsay 32 - 44;¶ s 60,63
64, 69, 74, 779, 84,
91, 96, 100, 103, 105,
107 Overruled
45 - Exhs 1-6, 21, 22,
23, 24, 28, 30 Overruled
Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Tom Rollins
Objection #/Para # Ruling
- ¶ 2 Overruled
- ¶ 6 Overruled
- ¶ 7 Overruled
- ¶ 9 Sustained only as to "As I understood the parties' business relations, and". Foundation. Overruled as to the balance.
- ¶ 10 Overruled
- ¶11,p.4:11-14 Sustained. Best evidence 7 - ¶11,p.4:14-18 Overruled
8 - ¶11,p.4:18-20 Overruled
10:30 AM
- ¶ 12 Sustained. Foundation; best evidence
& 11- ¶ 13 Sustained. Foundation; best evidence 12 - ¶ 14 Sustained. Foundation; best evidence
13 & 14 - ¶ 15 Sustained. Foundation; best evidence 15 - ¶ 16 Sustained. Foundation; best evidence
16 - ¶ 17 Sustained. Foundation; best evidence
17 - ¶ 18,p.8:3-9 Overruled
- ¶18, p.8:13-21 Overruled as to "SCM had been unable . . .
assets" and "These accounts receivable . . . assets of SCM." Sustain as to the balance. Best evidence
- ¶18, p.9:8-11 Sustained. Foundation 20 - ¶ 19 Overruled
- ¶ 20 Overruled
- ¶ 21 Sustained. Foundation
- ¶ 22 Sustained. Best evidence
- ¶ 27 Overruled
- ¶ 30 Overruled. Exh 37 not objected to.
- ¶ 32 Sustained
- ¶ 33 Overruled. Exh. 38 not objected to
- ¶ 34 Overruled. Exh. 39 not objected to
- ¶ 35 Sustained. Foundation; best evidence
Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Defendant Argent's Appendix of Evidence
All objections are Overruled for the reasons set forth in Defendant's Response to such evidentiary objections (incorporated herein by reference) and also pursuant to this court's rulings as to certain documents that are the subject of the court's May 13, 2019 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Evidence[docket #364]. See exhibit 1 thereto.
Defendant Argent's Evidentiary Objections to Howard Grobstein Report The objections regarding factual inaccuracies are well-taken.
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
10:30 AM
Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01015 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 95
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
10:30 AM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 340
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Mike D Neue Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 344
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01021 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 327
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
10:30 AM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 342
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Mike D Neue Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 346
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01022 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 329
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander
10:30 AM
R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 311
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 319
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01023 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 298
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta
10:30 AM
Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 308
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 312
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01024 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 68
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
10:30 AM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 320
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 328
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01025 SPEIER v. SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Fruadulent Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Bickford Ranch, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 77
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
10:30 AM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SUNCAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Represented By
Craig H Averch
Argent Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
STEVEN M. SPEIER Represented By Evan C Borges Mike D Neue William N Lobel
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 308
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Mike D Neue Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 312
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01026 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
(5) to Avoid and Recover Fraudulent Transfers [Debtor: SunCal Emerald Meadows, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 69
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
10:30 AM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 594
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 601
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch
10:30 AM
Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01125 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Marblehead, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 105
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
10:30 AM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Doah Kim Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 498
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Mike D Neue Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 502
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01126 Speier v. SunCal Management, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: SunCal Heartland, LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 99
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
10:30 AM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 486
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Mike D Neue Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 490
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01127 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 98
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
10:30 AM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 486
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Mike D Neue Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 490
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01128 Speier v. SunCal Management LLC et al
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 98
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker
10:30 AM
Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 490
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By
10:30 AM
Trustee(s):
Mike D Neue Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
FR: 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 494
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
May 7, 2019
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Defendants shall have 30 minutes to highlight its best arguments in favor of summary judgement or partial adjudication in its favor.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Defendants' Motion.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to reply.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Plaintiff shall have 30 minutes to highlight his best arguments in favor of summary judgment or partial adjudication in his favor.
Defendants shall have 15 minutes to highlight genuine issues of material fact re Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff shall have 15 minutes to reply.
10:30 AM
The matter will thereupon be taken under submission and a ruling (either oral written) issued on September 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. (XX)
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01129 Speier v. Argent Management, LLC et al
(5) To Avoid and Recover Preferential Transfers
[Debtor: Delta Coves Venture LLC]
FR: 8-1-18; 9-11-18; 5-2-18; 5-7-19; 9-26-19
Docket 100
TRAILED TO 2:00 PM - td (12/16/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Palmdale Hills Property, LLC Represented By Paul J Couchot Peter W Lianides
Richard W Esterkin Asa S Hami Charles Liu
James M Miller Raymond H. Aver Sean A OKeefe Marc J Winthrop Martin Pritikin Selia M Acevedo Francis T Donohue Richard H Golubow Louis R Miller
10:30 AM
Jeffrey W Broker Kavita Gupta Garrick A Hollander R Grace Rodriguez Lei Lei Wang Ekvall Mike D Neue
Defendant(s):
SunCal Management LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Argent Management, LLC Represented By Craig H Averch Aalok Sharma
Plaintiff(s):
Steven M Speier Represented By Mike D Neue
Gary A Pemberton Heather B Dillion Brianna L Frazier
Trustee(s):
Steven M Speier (TR) Represented By Louis R Miller Mike D Neue
Lei Lei Wang Ekvall
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:18-01118 Smith, III v. Swindell et al
FR: 11-8-18; 12-6-18; 1-31-19; 3-12-19; 4-18-19; 6-20-19; 7-18-19; 11-7-19
Docket 3
SPECIAL NOTE: Notice of Voluntary Partial Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding that Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 as to Defendants Casey Swindell and Kimberly Amaral Only filed 8/29/18 - td (8/30/2018)
November 8, 2018
Continue status conference to December 6, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to allow Plaintiff to file a formal motion to serve complaint by publication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.7004(c). Informal request in a declaration (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
December 6, 2018
No updated status report filed -- plaintiff's counsel to appear and advise the court re the status of the adversary and why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed for failure to timely file a status report.
January 31, 2019
9:30 AM
Continue status conference to March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by February 25, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
March 12, 2019
Continue Status Conference to April 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. ; updated Status Report must be filed by April 4, 2019. (XX)
Note: If Plaintiff accepts the foregoing tentative ruling, appearance at this hearing is not required.
April 18, 2019
In light of pending mediation, continue status conference to June 20, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by June 6, 2019. (XX)
Note: Appearance at this status conference is not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
June 20, 2019
Continue status conference to July 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in light of Plaintiff's pending motion for entry of default judgment as to Patrick Swindell, which motion is under review by the court. (XX)
Note: Appearance at today's hearing is not required.
July 18, 2019
Court's Comments re the Pending Motion for Default Judgment re Defendant David Hutchens:
1. Service:
9:30 AM
On November 6, 2018, this court granted Plaintiff's application for permission to serve Hutchens with the summons and complaint by publication. The application indicated that Plaintiff had previously attempted to serve Hutchens at a a post office box obtained through a skip trace search i.e., "P.O. Box 2313, Murphys, CA 92547" but that the service had been "refused." It is not clear whether the refusal was by Hutchens, the owner of the post office box, or the Post Office itself.
Pursuant to the November 6, 2018 Order (Publication Order), Plaintiff served the summons and complaint by publication in the Calaveras Enterprise.
Inesplicably, the Motion for Default Judgment was not served by publication but was instead served to the P.O. Box which had previously been refused and to a different zip code, 95287 and not 95247.
Based upon the foregoing it appears that service is not effective. Merits
9011: FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A) includes a safe harbor provision, service of the request for sanctions 21 days before it is filed with the court. Re the failure to prosecute the adversary, Hutchens could not legally do so after September 1, 2017 because he was disbarred. Can't be sanctioned for that. As to the proof of claim, no compliance with the safe harbor provision. Further, after September 1, 2017, Hutchens could not represent the other defendants and, therefore, likely had no authority to withdraw the proof of claim even if the safe harbor provision had been complied with.
Legal Fees: The Motion appears to include all attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff. Attorneys fees should be limited to matters specifically involving Hutchens during the time he was legally able to represent the other defendants, such as fees associated wtih Hutchens' failure to comply with LBR 7026 in the Swindell Adversary prior to his ineligibility to practice law on Sept. 1, 2017.
To the extent that fees are requested based on the allegation that Hutchens' purported false allegation caused the Trustee to file his adversary proceeding,
9:30 AM
such fees are not appropriate as the Trustee has an independent duty to investigate and to prosecute based on his own judgment.
November 7, 2019
In light of the pendency of two motions for default judgment, continue the status conference to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. (XX)
Special Note re the motion for default judgment against David Hutchens and Patrick Swindell):
David Hutchens
There is a pending motion for default judgment against defendant David Hutchens ("Hutchens"), as well as an amended memorandum of points and authorities in support of such judgment filed August 30, 2019. Though the motion for default judment is not on calendar today, the court wishes to advise counsel for plaintiff that it intends to rule as follows regarding the uncontested motion.
Rule 7016-1(f(3) Monetary Sanctions:
The motion will be granted in part to allow a default judgment in the amount of
$2,000 in monetary sanctions for reimbursement of reasonable attorneys fees associated with nondischargeability adversary proceeding no 16-01269 -- specifically, Plaintiff's appearance at the court-ordered mediation for which Hutchens did not appear and for preparation of the motion to dismiss. The amount is based on the court's assessment of reasonabless as Plaintiff did not submit time records with sufficient detail regarding 7016-1(f)(3) sanctions. The time records submitted include time charged for a variety of services unrelated to to the Hutchens' failures regarding that adversary proceeding.
Rule 9011 Sanctions
The motion is denied as to Rule 9011 sanctions due to Plaintiff's failure comply with the safe harbor provision of FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A). This is a mandatory provision and this court cannot grant relief without compliance with
9:30 AM
the same. See, Islamic Shura Council of S. California v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2014); In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003). This court lacks authority to "waive" the 21-day safe harbor provision and Plaintiff has provided no such legal authority for doing so. See, Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995); Islamic Shura supra. Rule 9011 sanctions is, therefore, not an available remedy for Plaintiff in light of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the same.
Plaintiff may lodge an order providing for the granting in part of the motion for default judgment in the amount of $2,000 pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1(f)(3) and denying as to sanctions pursuant to FRBP 9011.
Patrick Swindell
Deny motion pursuant to FRBP 9011 due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the safe harbor provision of FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A). This is a mandatory provision and this court cannot grant relief without compliance with the same. See, Islamic Shura Council of S. California v. F.B.I., 757 F.3d 870 (9th Cir.
2014); In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2003). This court lacks authority to "waive" the 21-day safe harbor provision and Plaintiff has provided no such legal authority for doing so. See, Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 1995); Islamic Shura supra. Rule 9011 sanctions is, therefore, not an available remedy for Plaintiff in light of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the same.
Proof of Claim #1
Deny motion as to the requested disallowance of Proof of Claim #1. Both the amended complaint and the motion are breathtakingly incoherent and fail to state a clear legal or factual basis for disallowance. Notably, a proof of claim is presumed valid when filed and the objecting party has the burden to provide evidence sufficient to shift the burden back to the claimant. Plaintiff has failed to do so in this matter, either via the amended complaint or the motion for default judgment.
December 19, 2019
9:30 AM
Court to issue Order to Show Cause Why This Adversary Proceeding Should Not Be Dismissed and Sanctions Imposed on Counsel for Plaintiff in an Amount of Not Less than $500.00.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Grounds for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause are based on the following circumstances:
Plaintiff's Counsel lodged an order with the court on December 17, 2019 that is completely contrary to the court's tentative ruling posted on November 7, 2019, which tentative ruling Counsel rested on, resulting in the tentative ruling becoming the order of the court.
On November 5, 2019, Counsel filed a "DECLARATION OF MICHAEL WORTHINGTON RE: MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID P. HUTCHENS AND PATRICK SWINDELL" ("Declaration") [docket #87]. In the Declaration, Counsel purports to have complied with the provisions of FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A) by filing the Motion for Default Judgment with Notice of the Opportunity to Request a Hearing. However, such Notice does not comply with FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A).
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011(c)(1)(A) provides in relevant part:
"A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 7004. The motion for sanctions may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion . . . the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected "
(emphasis added)
The foregoing provision is known as the "safe harbor" provision. It permits the responding party to withdraw or correct the offending document before the
9:30 AM
motion for sanctions is actually filed with the court. The safe harbor provision must be strictly complied with in order for sanctions to be imposed under the Rule 9011. In re Sammon, 253 B.R. 672, 678 (Bankr.D.S.C.2000). Under the safe harbor provision, a party seeking sanctions must first serve its motion on the opposing party and may thereafter file the motion with the court 21 days later only if the challenged pleading is neither withdrawn nor corrected within that time. The purpose is to give parties against whom the motion is directed an opportunity to remedy the alleged wrongs before the motion is filed with the court. In re M.A.S. Realty Corp. 326 B.R. 31, 38 (Bankr.D.Mass.2005).
Counsel commenced the within adversary proceeding by filing a complaint against defendants seeking Rule 9011 sanctions on June 26, 2018. See Docket #2. The complaint is the functional equivalent of a motion for Rule 9011 purposes. Compliance with Rule 9011(c)(1)(A) would have required Counsel to serve a copy of the complaint on defendants 21 days before filing the same with the court.This was not done. By the time the motion for default judgment was filed it was already too late to comply with the safe harbor provision.
In its November 7 tentative ruling, posted prior to the November 7, 2019 Status Conference, the the court stated that as to Defendant David Hutchens, "Plaintiff may lodge an order providing for the granting in part of the motion for default judgment in the amount of $2,000 pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7016-1(f)(3) and denying as to sanctions pursuant to FRBP 9011." (emphasis added).
The court also indicated in its November 7 tentative ruling that as to Defendant Patrick Swindell, the motion for default judgment for Rule 9011 sanctions would be denied for the same reason -- failure to comply with the safe harbor provision. The court further indicated that it would deny the request for disallowance of Proof of Claim #1 on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to provide evidence sufficient to rebut the presumed validity of the claim.
Counsel did not appear at the November 7, 2019 Status Conference to argue against the tentative ruling and the tentative ruling became the ruling of the court.
9:30 AM
On December 17, 2019, contrary to the court's ruling on November 7, 2019, Counsel lodged a "Proposed Amended Order Granting Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant David P. Hutchens" ("Proposed Order") that included the following conclusions of law:
"1. Defendant Hutchens violated Fed R Bankr P 9011(b) by signing a Proof of Claim No 1 and the Petition to Determine Non-Dischargeability
of
Debt, etc without making a sufficient investigation into the merits of Plaintiff/Creditors' claims.
Defendant Hutchens violated Fed. R Bankr P 9011(b) in failing to participate in the filing of a Joint Pretrial Statement in the Swindell Adversary.
Defendant Hutchens violated 28 USC §1927 by multiplying the proceedings herein unreasonably and vexatiously and may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct."
Contrary to the court's November 7, 2019 ruling, the Proposed Order included the following relief:
"Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff Thomas J. Smith, III and against Defendant David P. Hutchens in the amount of $74,685 according to the Amended Appendix of Billings as restitution."
Counsel has a history of filing incomplete and inadequate pleadings which is why this uncontested adversary proceeding has been pending for 18 months.
Debtor(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
9:30 AM
Michael Worthington
Defendant(s):
Patrick Swindell Pro Se
David P Hutchens Pro Se
Casey Swindell Pro Se
Kimberly Amaral Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Thomas J Smith III Represented By
Michael Worthington
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Thomas H Casey
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01038 Naylor v. Advanced Innovative Recovery Technologies, Inc.
FR: 5-30-19; 10-10-19
Docket 1
MATTER WILL BE TRAILED TO THE 10:30AM CALENDAR -- eas
May 30, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference to October 10, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 3. 2019 if the settlement has not been approved by the Court by such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this status conference are not required; Plaintiff to serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
October 10, 2019
In light of pending settlement, continue status conference one final time to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by December 5, 2019 if the adversary proceeding is still pending as of such date. (XX)
Note: Appearances at this hearing are not required.
December 19, 2019
9:30 AM
No Tentative Ruling. This matter will trail to the 10:30am calendar at the same time as the Motion to Approve Settlement.
Debtor(s):
William S. Stewart Pro Se
Defendant(s):
Advanced Innovative Recovery Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Barbara E. Stewart Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Karen Sue Naylor Represented By Christopher Minier
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01136 Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Golden
FR: 10-3-19; 11-7-19
Docket 1
CONTINUED: Status Conference Continued to 2/20/2020 at 9:30 a.m., Per
Order Entered 12/6/2019 (XX) - td (12/6/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Tung Phuong Nguyen-Phuc Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Jeffrey Golden Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Represented By
Lane K Bogard
Lisa Darling-Alderton
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Richard A Marshack Jerome Ringler Neil Macy Howard
9:30 AM
David Wood
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01058 Euretig et al v. Pate
FR: 6-20-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
June 20, 2019
This adversary proceeding will be stayed in light of the pending state court action, with periodic status conferences. Continue this status conference to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. An updated status report re the status of the state court action must be filed by December 12, 2019. (XX)
Special note: It is highly likely that once the updated status report is filed, the December 19, 2019 status conference will be continued without the necessity for appearances.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are waived; Plaintiff to lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
December 19, 2019
In light of the pending state court matter, continue this Status Conference to November 19, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by November 5, 2020. All discovery stayed until further notice.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are waived; Plaintiff to lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
9:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Sean Pate Represented By
Anerio V Altman
Defendant(s):
Sean Pate Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Gary Edelston Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Earl B Abramson Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Sunwest Trust Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Oxnard Street, LLC Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Michal Gutentag Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Barbara Edelston Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Beth Rakow Represented By
Jayne A Peeters
Jay Rakow Represented By
Jayne A Peeters
Sunwest Trust Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Louis Schwartz Represented By Jayne A Peeters
David P Abramson Represented By
9:30 AM
Jayne A Peeters
Rachel Euretig Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Andrew Euretig Represented By Jayne A Peeters
Zvi Gutentag Represented By
Jayne A Peeters
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01123 Will v. Madonna Zimmerman
FR: 9-19-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 19, 2019
Continue status conference to December 19, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by December 5, 2019. (XX)
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Relief from stay was granted to permit the probate matter to proceed on all issues other than a determination regarding ownership of the subject property. See Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's Opposition to the RFS Motion at
p. 2, lines 27-28. In order to award "damages" the probate court must necessarily determine whether Defendant's alleged conduct warrants a judgment of damages in Plaintiff's favor. Accordingly, Defendant's interpretation of the scope of the stay relief granted is flawed.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required.
December 19, 2019
In light of pending probate action, continue this status conference to April 16,
9:30 AM
2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report must be filed by Apri 2, 2020.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances at this hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Represented By Leslie K Kaufman
Defendant(s):
Alice L. Madonna Zimmerman Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Lisa Will Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Weneta M Kosmala (TR) Represented By Reem J Bello
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01177 Gama World Technologies, Inc. v. Shewa
FR: 11-21-19
Docket 1
SPECIAL NOTE: Call from plaintiff's attorney, Bryan M. Lieffer (213-680-5179), advising that this matter has settled. A motion to approve the settlement is forthcoming. -sb (12/16/2019 3:35 PM).
November 21, 2019
No proof of service showing proper service of the summons and complaint and no status report filed as required by LBR 7016-1. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against Plaintiff's counsel. Court to issue Order to Show Cause why this adversary proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 19, 2019
Continue status conference to February 6, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by January 23, 2020 if the matter is still pending as of that date.
Note: If both parties accept the foregoing tentative ruling, appearances
9:30 AM
at this hearing are not required and Plaintiff shall serve notice of the continued hearing date/time.
Debtor(s):
Chirag Shewa Represented By Leonard M Shulman
Defendant(s):
Chirag Shewa Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Gama World Technologies, Inc. Represented By Bryan Leifer
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Adv#: 8:19-01203 Weaver v. Geico General Insurance Company
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of an Adversary Proceeding That Does Not Involve Claims Under 11 U.S.C. §727 filed 11/7/2019, 11/21/2019, and 12/16/2019. No Answer Filed - td (12/17/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Ryan Ramon Weaver Represented By Anerio V Altman
Defendant(s):
Geico General Insurance Company Pro Se
Plaintiff(s):
Ryan Weaver Represented By
Anerio V Altman
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. VS.
DEBTOR
FR: 10-17-19; 11-19-19
Docket 56
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation/APO) Entered 12/3/2019 - td (12/3/2019)
October 17, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver and co-debtor stay relief.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
November 19, 2019
Movant to advise the court of the status of this matter.
10:00 AM
Debtor(s):
Linda Anne Boyer Represented By
Ramiro Flores Munoz
Movant(s):
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Represented By
April Harriott Keith Labell Theron S Covey Eric P Enciso Sean C Ferry
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
VS.
DEBTORS
Docket 73
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Grant with 4001(a)(3) waiver.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Stephen B Fuller Represented By Richard G Heston
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee M Fuller Represented By Richard G Heston
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
LOGIX FEDERAL CREDIT Represented By Reilly D Wilkinson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
JOHN P. KING, JR. TRUSTEE OF THE KING FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 31, 2001; et al.
VS.
DEBTOR
Docket 99
OFF CALENDAR: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay (Settled by Stipulation) Entered on 12/16/19 (liz)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
Movant(s):
John P. King, Jr., Trustee of the Represented By Julian K Bach
10:00 AM
Docket 4
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Deny motion due to failure of Debtor to rebut the presumption of bad faith. Basis for Tentative Ruling:
This is Debtor's fifth chapter 13 case since 2012. None of the prior cases have been successful. The most recent, Case No. 18-14471 filed December 7, 2018 was dismissed on December 26 for failure to file schedules. Debtor offers no explanation for while he did not timely file schedules.
Debtor lists monthly income of $6,000 for self-employment services but does not schedule any amount for taxes. Modest monthly taxes of $400 would render the plan infeasible ($6000-$400 = $5600 - $3820 = $1,780.
In Case No. 18-14471, because Debtor had had another case pending within a year (No. 18-12682), Debtor filed a Motion to Continue the Automatic Stay ("Prior Motion"). Importantly, in the Prior Motion Debtor provides the identical argument regarding good faith. In other words, the current Motion is literally a "cut and paste" from the Prior Motion word for word. See Prior Motion, Sections 4(a)(1)(B) and 4(a)(2)(B) and (C) [Docket #10]. Similarly, Section 4(G) of the Prior Motion is word for word the same in the current Motion. Debtor was represented by the same attorney in both cases. In light of the foregoing, the court gives no weight to the assertions of good faith made in the current Motion.
10:00 AM
3. According to objecting creditor, U.S. Bank, Debtor has not made a mortgage payment since May, 2019 and failed to make the first postpetition payment due December 1, 2019.
Debtor(s):
Heriberto Moreno Represented By Lionel E Giron
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
AJAX MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2018-G VS.
DEBTOR FR: 12-5-19
Docket 66
- NONE LISTED -
December 5, 2019
Movant to advise the court whether Debtor is current in light of documents attached to the Opposition filed on Nov. 21, 2019. If additional time is needed, the parties may obtain a continuance by requesting the same during the calendar roll-call just prior to the hearing. Available continued hearing dates: Dec. 19, 2019 or January 9, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
December 19, 2019
The parties are to advise the court re the status of this matter.
Debtor(s):
Jean A Butler-Boren Represented By Thomas J Polis
10:00 AM
Movant(s):
Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 2018-G, Represented By
Joshua L Scheer Reilly D Wilkinson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:00 AM
Docket 41
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Grant Motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Randy James Allison Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 337
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Dismiss case due to inability of Debtor to administer the confirmed plan. Judgment in favor of the UST for any outstanding quarterly fees.
No substantive response to the OSC was filed.
Debtor(s):
Alma Theresa Tejadilla Reyes Represented By
Ivan M Lopez Ventura Jeffrey V Hernandez
10:30 AM
(Set at Conf. hrg. held 5/22/14)
FR: 11-20-14; 3-5-15; 9-10-15; 3-10-16; 9-8-16; 3-16-17; 9-21-17; 3-22-18;
3-29-18; 10-11-18; 12-6-18; 3-21-19; 5-30-19; 9-12-19; 11-7-19
Docket 209
- NONE LISTED -
November 20, 2014
Continue status conference to March 5, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.,; updated status report to be filed by Feb 19, 2015. (XX)
Special note: The court would ordinarily continue the hearing 180 days. However, because of Debtor's failure to timely commence plan payments as to certain classes, the continued hearing will be heard sooner this time.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the US Trustee, appearance at today's hearing is not required. It is Debtors' responsibility to confirm such compliance with the US Trustee prior to the hearing.
March 5, 2015
Continue status conference to September 10, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by August 27, 2015. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the
10:30 AM
UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 10, 2015
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 10, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report to be filed by February 25, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
March 10, 2016
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 8, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 28, 2016. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 8, 2016
Continue postconfirmation status conference to March 16, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by March 2, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
March 16, 2017 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to September 21, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by August 31, 2017. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well- prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
September 21, 2017
Comments:
The report re Class 6 appears to be a cut and paste from the Sixth Postconfirmation Status Report -- has Debtor made quarterly distributions in 2017?
Does Debtor intend to seek a final decree prior to 2024, notwithstanding that plan payments will continue until 2024?
March 29, 2018 [GOLD STAR PLEADING]]*
Continue Postconfirmation Status Conference to October 11, 2018 at 10:30 a.m.; updated Status Report to be filed by September 27, 2018 (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
*Special Note: "Gold Star" designation above signifies an exceptionally well-
10:30 AM
prepared pleading (Sixth Post-Confirmation Status Report)
October 11, 2018
Updated postconfirmation status report not timely filed. Impose sanctions against Debtor's counsel in the amount of $100.00 for failure to timely file an updated status report.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is required.
December 6, 2018
Continue status conference to March 21, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed no later than March 7, 2019 and should specifically address 1) Debtor's employment status, and 2) the status of plan arrearages as to Class 2(c). (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements
March 21, 2019
Continue Status Conference to May 30, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; An updated status report must be filed by May 16, 2019 and such report shall address the following: 1) the amount of arrears for each class that is not current as of May 1, 2019, and 2) the status of her employment. (XX)
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
10:30 AM
May 30, 2019
Continue status conference to September 12, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by August 29, 2019. (XX)
Special note: The court is concerned about Debtor's continuing plan default as to Class 2(c).
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
September 12, 2019
Continue status conference to November 7, 2019 at 10:30 a.m.; updated status report must be filed by October 24, 2019 (XX)
Special note: The court is concerned about Debtor's continuing plan default as to Class 2(c). If Debtor continues to fail to make payments to this creditor, absent a loan modification, the court will issue an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal immediately following the November 7, 2019 status conference.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
November 7, 2019
Continue Status Conference to December 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. The Court shall issue an Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should not Be Dismissed Due to Debtor's Continuing Inability to Comply With the Terms of the Confirmed Fourth Amended Plan. The hearing on the Order to Show
10:30 AM
Cause shall be set for December 19, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. (XX) Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Debtor has a history of not making plan payments as is reflected in several tentative ruling notations for prior status conferences (see above). In the current report, Debtor admits she is not current with plan payments as to Classes 2(c), 3(a), and 3(b). Debtor has not disclosed the amount of arrearages as to each such class (which this Court has requested for prior reports).
Debtor first states that she "has become unemployed," and then in the next sentence states that she "is employed but her employer has not paid her for work performed" since January 2019. No information is provided as to why the employer is not paying her, the amount owed, or why she expects to be paid retroactively for the past 10 months. See 13th Status Report at p. 4.
Note: If Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the UST, appearance at this hearing is not required. It is Debtor's responsibility to confirm the status of its compliance with the US Trustee requirements.
December 19, 2019
Take status conference off calendar in light of dismissal of the ch. 11 case
10:30 AM
Debtor(s):
Alma Theresa Tejadilla Reyes Represented By
Ivan M Lopez Ventura Jeffrey V Hernandez
10:30 AM
[JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 95
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Wayne Ralph Marsh Represented By Andy J Epstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Jennifer R. Marsh Represented By Andy J Epstein
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
[LAW OFFICES OF WENETA M.A. KOSMALA, ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY I. GOLDEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 89
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Wayne Ralph Marsh Represented By Andy J Epstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Jennifer R. Marsh Represented By Andy J Epstein
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
[HAHN FIFE & COMPANY, ACCOUNTANTS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE JEFFREY I. GOLDEN]
Docket 94
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Wayne Ralph Marsh Represented By Andy J Epstein
Joint Debtor(s):
Jennifer R. Marsh Represented By Andy J Epstein
Trustee(s):
Jeffrey I Golden (TR) Represented By Erin P Moriarty
10:30 AM
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01112 Herrera et al v. Blair
FR: 6-13-19
Docket 36
- NONE LISTED -
June 13, 2019
Grant motion with leave to amend. Amended complaint must be filed by July 12, 2019; responsive pleading must be filed by August 12, 2019. The court abstains under 1334(c)(1) from adjudicating the validity of the will or, if there is no will, intestate succession.
Basis for Tentative Ruling:
Standard for Judgment on the Pleadings - FRCP 12(c)
After the pleadings are closed, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. FRCP 12(c) as adopted by FRBP 7012(b). A motion under FRCP 12(c) challenges the legal sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings, similar to that of a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. In deciding a FRCP 12(c) motion, the court applies the same standards applicable to a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion. Cafasso, U.S. ex. rel. v General Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054, n. 4 (9th Cir. 2011).
"Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law... However,
10:30 AM
judgment on the pleadings is improper when the district court goes beyond the pleadings to resolve an issue; such a proceeding must properly be treated as a motion for summary judgment." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989). "On a 12(c) motion, the court considers ‘the complaint, the answer, any written documents attached to them, and any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case.’ " L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir. 2011).
Twombly/Iqbal "plausibility standards are applicable to FRCP 12(c) motions. Chavez v. U.S., 683 F.2d 1102, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2012). In Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007), the Supreme Court established more stringent notice-pleading standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A plaintiff is required to provide more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ...." Id. The plaintiff must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
The Court cannot find that the Motion should be granted without leave to amend due to the will's apparent non-compliance with California Probate Code Section 6110(c)(1)
Movant argues that the will filed in connection with the Complaint is invalid on its face because it was witnessed by only one party and that, under California Probate Code 6110, two witness signatures are required. Indeed,
10:30 AM
Cal. Prob. Code 6110(c)(1) provides that "except as provided in paragraph (2), the will shall be witnessed by . . . at least two persons " (emphasis
added). Clearly, the proffered will has only one signature and, on the face of the document it would appear not to satisfy 6110(c)(1). However, noncompliance with 6110(c)(1) is not dispositive of validity of the will.
Paragraph 2 of 6110(c) provides that if the will is not signed by two witnesses, the will may be deemed to comply with 6110(c)(1) if "the proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time the testator signed the will, the testator intended the will to constitute the testator's will." Though the Complaint is silent as to factual allegations re 6110(c)(2), the liberal leave to amend policy of this Circuit would dictate that leave should be granted to allow Plaintiff to amend the Complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 (made applicable to this proceeding by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7015) provides that a party may amend the party’s pleading by leave of court and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit applies this rule with "extreme liberality." Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997).
As to Movant's argument that Plaintiff has submitted no "proof or evidence that the will is enforceable or could be enforceable under California Probate Section 6110(c)(2) " and no "declarations or evidence to support
any of thier assertions," the Court would not have have considered as part of this Motion any evidence or documents outside the four corners of the Complaint and exhibits. To do so, would convert the matter to a summary judgment motion.
The Court notes that if the Complaint is amended to add facts relevant to 6110(c)(2), this court should abstain from determining the validity of the will under the so-called "probate exception rule."
While 28 U.S.C. § 1334 vests federal jurisdiction of bankruptcy cases and related proceedings, there is a "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308 (2006); see also, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (district courts may refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to bankruptcy courts). Thus, “the probate exception prevents a federal court
10:30 AM
from probating a will, administering a decedent's estate, or disposing of property in the custody of a state probate court.” Goncalves By & Through Goncalves v. Rady Children's Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017); Marshall, 547 U.S. at 311-12. The probate exception is limited, however, and “it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.” Marshall, 547 U.S. at 312.
Satisfaction of Prob. Code Section 6110(c)(2) should be determined by the state probate court.
The Court cannot make a finding of lack of standing pursuant to California Probate Code 6402 alone.
Movant argues if the will is deemed in valid, Plaintiff Yvonne Herrara is the Decedent's step-daughter and not his natural or adopted daughter, and therefore is not a relative in line for intestate succession under Cal. Prob.
Code 6402. This is true. However, Cal. Prob. Code 6454 provides that for purposes of determining intestate succession, a foster child or step-child may qualify if "(a) the relationship began during the person's minority and continued throughout the joint lifetimes of the person and the the person's . . . stepparent," and "(b) it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the . . . stepparent would have adopted the person but for the legal barrier."
The determination of the applicability and satisfaction of Probate Section 6454 should be determined by the state probate court.
Abstention under 28 USC 1334(c)(1)
28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) provides that a bankruptcy court may abstain from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11 when to do so would be in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law.
The Court believes it would be appropriate for the California probate court to decide the validity of the will as well as any intestate succession issues. Once such determination is made, the Court can adjudicate the
10:30 AM
specific allegations under 523(a).
December 19, 2019
Grant the Motion with leave to file an amended complaint no later than January 10, 2020; responsive pleading due January 30, 2020; status conference hearing to take place on February 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; joint status report due February 13, 2020. The court incorporates by reference herein its tentative ruling for June 13, 2019 above.
The court shall issue an Order to Show Cause why this adversary proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to time prosecute the same, which OSC hearing shall take place on February 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. The OSC shall be based on the fact that Plaintiff has waited six months to submit the will to probate for no good reason shown in the joint status report.
Debtor(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly H. Zinser
Defendant(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly H. Zinser
Plaintiff(s):
Yvonne Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
10:30 AM
Dylan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Ethan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kristine A Thagard Chad V Haes
10:30 AM
Adv#: 8:17-01112 Herrera et al v. Blair
FR: 9-21-17; 5-3-18; 5-17-18; 9-6-18; 12-6-18; 1-24-19; 4-11-19; 7-11-19;
8-1-19
Docket 1
- NONE LISTED -
September 21, 2017
Discovery Cut-off Date: Feb. 28, 2018
Deadline to Attend Mediation: Mar. 30, 2018
Pretrial Conference Date: May 3, 2018 at 9:30
a.m. (XX)
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Stipulation: Apr. 26, 2018
Note: If all parties agree with the foregoing schedule, appearances at today's hearing are waived and Plaintiff shall serve/lodge a scheduling order consistent with the same.
September 6, 2018
No status report filed. Impose sanctions in the amount of $100 against counsel for plaintiffs for failure to do so.
Plaintiffs' counsel to appear and advise the court re the outcome of the mediation and the status of this adversary.
Note: Appearances at this hearing are required.
10:30 AM
December 6, 2018
Both counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant must appear and advise the court why sanctions in the amount of $100 should not be imposed against both counsel for failure to comply with the Local Bankruptcy Rules, to wit:
Plaintiffs' counsel has not prepared, transmitted or filed a joint pretrial stipulation as required by LBR 7016-1(c);
Defendant's counsel, having not received a timely draft of a JPS, has not filed or served a proposed pretrial stipulation in accordance with LBR
7016-1(e)(2); and
Neither counsel has advised this court whether the parties attended mediation and the outcome of the same or, if not, why the parties did not attend mediation.
Note: Appearance by all counsel at this hearing is required.
December 19, 2019
Continue status conference to February 20, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.; updated joint status report due February 13, 2020.
Debtor(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Represented By Kelly Zinser
Defendant(s):
Karem Angelica Blair Pro Se
10:30 AM
Plaintiff(s):
Yvonne Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Dylan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Ethan Herrera Represented By Fritz J Firman
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By Kristine A Thagard Chad V Haes
10:30 AM
Docket 32
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Grant motion subject to overbid.
Debtor(s):
William S. Stewart Pro Se
Joint Debtor(s):
Barbara E. Stewart Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Represented By Nanette D Sanders Brian R Nelson Christopher Minier
10:30 AM
[RICHARD A. MARSHACK, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE]
Docket 47
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Approve fees and expenses as requested.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by Applicant is required. Should an opposition party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Applicant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
John Bruce Johnson Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 312
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Grant motion subject to overbid. If there there are overbidders, the auction will take place outside the courtroom.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village MHP Associates LP Represented By
Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays Kristine A Thagard Arthur Grebow David Wood Tinho Mang
10:30 AM
Docket 147
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Grant motion
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Friendly Village GP, LLC Represented By Howard Camhi
Trustee(s):
Richard A Marshack (TR) Represented By
D Edward Hays David Wood Kristine A Thagard
10:30 AM
Claim No. 14 American Express National Bank Claim No. 15 American Express National Bank FR: 9-19-19
Docket 56
OFF CALENDAR: Order Approving Stipulation to Dismiss Debtors' Motion for an Order Disallowing Claim Numbers 14 and 15 Entered 12/18/2019 - td (12/18/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano
Movant(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By
10:30 AM
Giovanni Orantes Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano Luis A Solorzano
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes Giovanni Orantes Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano Luis A Solorzano Luis A Solorzano
10:30 AM
Docket 91
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Claims Bar Date: Mar. 3, 2020
Deadline to file plan/DS: Feb 14, 2020
Continued Status Conference: Apr. 2, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
Updated Status Report due*: Mar. 19, 2020
*Updated status report not required if plan/DS have been filed by such date.
Note: Appearance at this hearing is not required if Debtor is in substantial compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Trustee. It is Debtor's responsibility to ascertain its compliance status prior to the hearing.
Debtor(s):
Gustavo Bautista Ortiz Represented By Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano
Joint Debtor(s):
Amparo Hernandez Castro Represented By Giovanni Orantes Luis A Solorzano
10:30 AM
FR: 12-5-19
Docket 50
CONTINUED: Hearing Continued to 1/9/2020 at 10:30 a.m., Per Order Entered 12/18/2019 (XX) - td (12/18/2019)
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Bruce Elieff Represented By
Paul J Couchot
2:00 PM
Adv#: 8:18-01172 Pacific Western Bank v. Gaglio et al
Docket 56
- NONE LISTED -
December 19, 2019
Grant the motion.
Note: This matter appears to be uncontested. Accordingly, no court appearance by the Movant is required. Should an opposing party file a late opposition or appear at the hearing, the court will determine whether further hearing is required and Movant will be so notified.
Debtor(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
Defendant(s):
Jack G. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Thomas J Eastmond Robert P Goe
2:00 PM
Joint Debtor(s):
Laura A. Gaglio Represented By Timothy S Huyck Thomas J Eastmond
Plaintiff(s):
Pacific Western Bank Represented By Kenneth Hennesay
Trustee(s):
Karen S Naylor (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Joshue Avendano Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 21
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Maria Guadalupe Canales Represented By Daniel King
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 13
OFF CALENDAR: Debtor's Notice of Conversion of Bankruptcy Case From Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 filed 11/12/2019; Case Converted to Chapter 7 - td (11/13/2019)
Debtor(s):
Yolanda Ibarra Represented By Sunita N Sood
Trustee(s):
Thomas H Casey (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 21
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Jorge Sanchez Represented By Kevin Tang
Joint Debtor(s):
Zoila Quinonez Represented By Kevin Tang
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Daniel Gonzalez Represented By Scott Dicus
Joint Debtor(s):
Emily Gonzalez Represented By Scott Dicus
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 1
OFF CALENDAR: Order Dismissing Case for Failure to File Schedules, Statements, and/or Plan Entered 10/29/2019 - td (12/3/2019)
Debtor(s):
Richard P Alexander Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Raul Rios Munoz Represented By Bert Briones
Joint Debtor(s):
Anna Munoz Represented By
Bert Briones
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
William H Waller Represented By Christopher J Langley
Joint Debtor(s):
Sandra M Waller Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stephen Jacob Maki Represented By
Nicholas Nicholas Wajda
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Darnell Lamarque Sherman Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 29
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Walt Dodge Represented By
Walter David Channels
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 19
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Steve Kim Represented By
Richard L. Sturdevant
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Edgard Paniz Represented By
Anthony B Vigil
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 29
OFF CALENDAR: Order of Dismissal Arising from Debtor's Request for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 13 with Restrictions (11 U.S.C. §109(g)(2) and 1307(b)) Entered 12/19/2019 - td (12/19/2019)
Debtor(s):
Jaime Dale Krueger Represented By Edward T Weber
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 28
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Paul Edwin Baloloy Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 31
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Nelson D. Randlin Represented By Christine A Kingston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 13
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lester Franklin Stevens Jr. Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Joint Debtor(s):
Nancy Ashley Stevens Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 7
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
John William Carter Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Elisa B. Sim Represented By
Andrew Moher
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 8
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Dimitrios A Kouzoukas Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Joint Debtor(s):
Jessica R Kouzoukas Represented By Jacqueline D Serrao
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 17
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Morteza Hamidi Pro Se
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 2
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Peter Stankovich Represented By Christopher J Langley
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Randy James Allison Represented By Giovanni Orantes
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 15
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lauren Lizbeth Witek Represented By Dana M Douglas
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 12
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Lisa Anna Gregorius Represented By Sheila M Pistone
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 10
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Shauna Barnhardt Represented By Michael D Franco
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
9:30 AM
Docket 0
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Stephen B Fuller Represented By Richard G Heston
Joint Debtor(s):
Renee M Fuller Represented By Richard G Heston
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 11-26-19
Docket 43
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 12/4/2019 - td (12/4/2019)
Debtor(s):
Mario Jonathan Saldivar Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Alicia Marie Braddock Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 48
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 10-22-19; 11-26-19
Docket 44
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Marvin L Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Joint Debtor(s):
Mary Ann Tan Sanders Represented By Joshua L Sternberg
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
FR: 11-26-19
Docket 33
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
David Maurice Denman Represented By Nicholas W Gebelt
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 67
OFF CALENDAR: Notice of Withdrawal of Trustee's Motion for Order Dismissing Chapter 13 filed 11/18/2019 - td (11/19/2019)
Debtor(s):
Christopher Quentin Chappell Represented By Michael Jones Sara Tidd
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 86
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Andre Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Joint Debtor(s):
Nida Taylor Represented By
Sundee M Teeple Craig K Streed
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 71
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Christina Platt Represented By Julie J Villalobos
Joint Debtor(s):
Robert L Platt Represented By
Julie J Villalobos
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se
10:30 AM
Docket 120
- NONE LISTED -
Debtor(s):
Justin William Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Joint Debtor(s):
Heather Ann Mize Represented By
Misty A Perry Isaacson
Trustee(s):
Amrane (SA) Cohen (TR) Pro Se