Opinions
All court opinions may be accessed at no charge via PACER through the "Written Opinions" link on the Reports page. You must, however, have an account to access the report via CM/ECF or PACER.
Access to opinions from 1997 to present, that are PDF searchable, unrestricted & unsealed, are also available through the Government Printing Office using the Advanced Search for Government Publications. There is no login required and publications are available free of charge.
Court Opinions Database
The court's provides free access of some opinions, at the discretion of the judges, for the years 1998 to present. The results shown below are automatically displayed for all years, all judges, and all keywords/topics.
A search may be performed using the Search box above, or filtering by year, judge, and/or keyword/topic. To search for more than one judge and/or keywords/topics simultaneously, hold down the Ctrl key (or Command key) and select each item.
| Keywords/Topic | Date | Title | Description | Judge | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adversary, Standing, Summary Judgment | 10/11/2024 | Pidcock v. McCune, et al |
The Court denied Defendant Chuck McCune’s motion for summary judgment, in which he asserted, among other things, that Plaintiff Robert Pidcock, as personal representative of the estate of Thomas W. Kuehn, lacked standing in the adversary proceeding. After determining that Mr. Pidcock had constitutional and statutory standing, the Court addressed prudential standing. The Court explained that to have prudential standing before the bankruptcy court a plaintiff must assert a right to relief of its own, not a third party’s right to relief. However, Congress may expressly grant a right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing limitations. In this case, the Court determined that Mr. Pidcock has prudential standing because § 523 expressly grants a right of action to creditors (such as Mr. Pidcock) to object to the dischargeability of debts. In addition, the Court held that Mr. Pidcock has prudential standing because, as the personal representative of the Kuehn Estate, he is asserting his own rights on behalf of the Kuehn Estate, not the rights of a third party. Finally, the Court held that Mr. McCune’s summary judgment motion was untimely and, even if it had been timely, it would have been denied.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Judicial Liens - Avoidance | 09/30/2024 | Kimberly Gonzales |
Debtor sought to avoid creditor’s judicial liens under § 522(f) as impairing her homestead exemption. In determining the value of the Debtor’s property, the court was not bound by either the Debtor’s or the creditor’s appraisal and formed its own opinion of value based on the evidence. In applying the statutory lien avoidance formula, Debtor was entitled to avoid the creditor’s lien in its entirety.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Automatic Stay, Reconsideration, Rooker-Feldman | 09/20/2024 | Leland Glen Shook and Corey Levelle Shook |
Creditor moved for reconsideration of an order ruling that creditor had violated the automatic stay by pursuing state court litigation postpetition. Creditor’s primary argument in support of reconsideration was the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar a bankruptcy court from determining whether post-petition pursuit of a state court action violated the stay, even if the state court ruled that the stay did not prevent pursuit of the litigation.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 13, Dismissal | 09/16/2024 | Richard Jaramillo |
The court determined that debtor was ineligible to be a debtor in bankruptcy pursuant to § 109(g)(1). The debtor’s prior bankruptcy case was pending within 180 days of the current bankruptcy case, and it was dismissed due to debtor’s “willful failure to appear before the court in proper prosecution of the case.” Specifically, the court ruled that debtor’s intentional failure to appear at two hearings—on the motion to dismiss the prior case and debtor’s motion to reconsider the dismissal—constituted willful failure to appear before the court for purposes of § 109(g)(1). On such basis, the court dismissed the current bankruptcy case.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Jurisdiction | 08/30/2024 | HRV Santa Fe, LLC v. Jay Wolf et al |
Defendant removed state court action and filed motion to change venue to the district of Delaware. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The Court held that Defendants had not carried their burden of proving that venue transfer was either in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties, as required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1412.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Summary Judgment | 08/27/2024 | John and Olga Montiel |
The Court denied, without prejudice, debtors’ motion for summary judgment on their motion to avoid judicial lien as impairing their homestead exemption. Creditor raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether debtors had an interest in the property in which debtors claimed a homestead exemption. Debtors’ summary judgment motion exceeded the relief requested in the motion to avoid judicial lien. The opinion also includes guidance on what Rule 56 and LBR 7056-1 require.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Automatic Stay, Punitive Damages, Stay Violation | 08/22/2024 | Jessica Chantele Alcon |
Individual chapter 7 debtor asked for damages caused by utility company’s alleged violation of the automatic stay. The court found that the company had violated the stay in several respects; had also overcharged debtor for the postpetition deposit; had improperly allocated pre- and postpetition electricity charges; and had demanded payment of the postpetition deposit more quickly than promised. The court awarded actual damages of $381 and punitive damages of $2,000. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Appeals, Automatic Stay, Relief from Stay | 08/16/2024 | Noah Sapir |
Debtor moved for relief from stay to pursue state court appeal of $6.8 million judgment against him. The Court ruled that the Tenth Circuit’s In re Gindi decision—which requires that a creditor seeking relief from stay to pursue an appeal show that he is “likely to succeed” on appeal—does not apply when it is the debtor who seeks stay relief. The Court determined that futility of the appeal would have been a dispositive factor, but that the Debtor’s appeal is not futile. After considering all relevant factors, the Court granted relief from stay.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Appeals, Jurisdiction | 08/12/2024 | HRV Santa Fe, LLC v. Jay Wolf et al |
Plaintiff filed motion for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Relying on the “collateral order doctrine,” Plaintiff argued that the Court lost jurisdiction over the proceeding pending the district court’s ruling on the interlocutory appeal motion. The Court overruled the argument, holding that the collateral order doctrine did not apply. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s alleged informal motion for a stay pending appeal.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Summary Judgment | 08/09/2024 | John Hays v. Michael Albert Guebara |
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment that his state court judgment entitled him to a judgment of nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(4). The state court judgment included judgment on two conversion claims. The Court denied the motion, holding that conversion is not interchangeable with embezzlement or larceny, the torts mentioned in 523(a)(4) that Plaintiff relies upon.
|
Judge David T. Thuma |