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, Discharge | 04/24/2020 | Rebecca L. Heizer v. Roy Mitchell Waggoner et al |
Plaintiff sought to deny Debtor-Defendants a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4)(A) for failing to disclose the pre-petition sale of a plot of land by real estate contract on Debtors’ schedules and at their § 341 meetings. The Court ruled in favor of the Debtors and ruled that they could receive their discharge because the Court found there was no fraudulent intent in their oral and written omissions regarding the sale of the plot.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Summary Judgment | 04/15/2020 | Edward Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Company et al |
On cross motions for summary judgment on the issue whether a national title insurer was vicariously liable for the alleged tortious conduct of a local title company, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the national title insurer. The Court held that the title insurer could not be sued in tort for the local title company’s work as title agent. The Court held, also, that the local title company was not the title insurer’s agent for the provision of escrow services.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Abandonment, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Assumption and Rejection, Discharge Injunction, Judicial Admissions Doctrine | 04/13/2020 | Financial Security Credit Union v. Stephen Porter and Tische Lynae Porter |
Plaintiff moved for a summary judgment declaration that Plaintiff’s three loans to one Defendant were cross-collateralized and secured by Defendants’ vehicle, that Defendant did not properly tender a payoff of the loans, that Defendants could not lien strip the loans, and a declaration that Plaintiff was fully secured. Court granted summary judgment as to the cross-collateralization of the loans and the failure of Defendants to tender payoff, but determined that the rem was no longer in the estate or in the Court’s jurisdiction, so it could not provide the Plaintiff further relief.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Summary Judgment | 04/03/2020 | Edward Alexander Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Co. et al |
Chapter 7 trustee, acting on behalf of individual Debtor’s bankruptcy estate and the LLC of which Debtor was formerly the managing member brought several claims against a national title insurance company for damages arising from negligence and other alleged wrongful conduct of a local title insurance company, which acted as a title insurance agent for the national title insurance company. The Court held that the debtor, in his individual capacity and therefore the trustee in his representative capacity, had no standing to bring the claims which belonged exclusively to the LLC. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the national title insurance company as to all claims brought by the Trustee on behalf of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Relief from Judgment, Reconsideration | 04/02/2020 | Joe Jesse Monge and Rosana Elena Monge |
Chapter 11 individual Debtors moved for reconsideration of a default order granting mortgage creditor relief from the automatic stay to continue foreclosure action. The Court denies Debtors’ motion because Debtors do not state grounds that would justify reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and because Debtors’ conveyance of the property to their son by quitclaim deed means that reinstatement of the automatic stay would not protect the home from foreclosure in any event.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Corporate Veil, Exemptions, Property of the Estate | 03/27/2020 | Timothy W. Hess |
Chapter 7 trustee objected to Debtor’s claimed homestead exemption in a house that he claimed to lease from the LLC owner, which in turn is wholly owned by the Debtor. The Court sustained the trustee’s objection because the balance of the equities did not justify inside reverse piercing of the corporate veil, and the Court determined that the Debtor could claim an exemption only to the extent of the value of his month-to-month leasehold interest in the property.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Conversion, Standing | 03/20/2020 | Victor P. Kearney |
Debtor moved to strike for lack of standing an objection to his motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7, filed by the trustees of trusts in which Debtor is a beneficiary. The Court ruled that the trustees have standing as parties in interest to both object to the motion to convert and to move for reconversion to chapter 11 if the Court were to grant Debtor’s motion to convert. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Discharge Injunction, Jurisdiction, Redemption, Res Judicata, Standing | 03/13/2020 | Fred Dale Van Winkle |
Debtor’s co-personal representatives moved to reopen case to file an adversary proceeding against certain creditors for an alleged violation of the discharge injunction. The Court granted the motion after determining that movants had standing, that the Court was not procedurally barred from reopening the case, and that movants had made a sufficient showing to justify reopening. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Abstention, Jurisdiction | 03/10/2020 | United Tort Claimants, as Individuals v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC |
Based on comity and respect for state court, the Court permissively abstained from adjudicating a fee sharing dispute between attorneys over entitlement to fees earned as a result of the settlement agreement entered in the related adversary proceedings. Even though the Court has inherent authority to enforce its own prior orders, regulate the practice of attorneys who appear before it, and, consistent with § 105, exercise jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process, the fee sharing dispute was already raised in a pending state court action.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Dischargeability | 02/28/2020 | Adrianne Anaya v. Amalio Cardoza et al |
After trial, the Court determined that the debt resulting from a dog bite did not meet the willful and malicious requirements for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(6). Even though Defendants knew that animal welfare had declared their dogs dangerous, and knew that the dogs continued to get out of the Defendants’ fenced yard, Defendants were unaware of any prior attack, did not intend to injure Plaintiff, and did not have the subjective belief that their failure to properly confine their dogs was substantially certain to cause Plaintiff her particularized injury.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |