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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automatic Stay, Stay Violation | 01/30/2017 | Clyde Lovato |
The Court denied the debtor’s request to strike creditor’s motion for relief from stay, rejecting debtor’s argument that the creditor’s post petition recordation of an assignment of mortgage was void ab initio and violated the automatic stay. The post-peptition transfer of an existing pre-petition mortgage and note, including the recording of an assignment of mortgage in the real property records, does not violate the automatic stay because it does not transfer the debtor’s property or property of the estate. Such transfer does not constitute an act to perfect, create, or enforce a lien against the debtor’s property or property of the bankruptcy estate. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary, Contract Interpretation, Setoff | 01/30/2017 | Harpole Construction, Inc. v. Medallion Midstream, LLC |
Court held a trial on the merits on Plaintiff's and Defendant's breach of contract claims. Although the Court found no breach of contract, the contract entitled Plaintiff to payment for work performed, which was more than offset by both the cost to fix Plaintiff's work and for subcontractor liens on Defendant's property. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Discharge | 01/24/2017 | Peplinski v. Whitaker et al |
The Court denied the debtors’ discharge under § 727(a)(4) based on debtors’ failure to list two vehicles on their schedules. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Employment of Professionals | 01/18/2017 | Gary Sasso |
The Court, sua sponte, terminated counsel’s employment representing Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy case. Counsel had an actual, disqualifying conflict of interest stemming from its representation of a creditor in the case. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Proof of Claim, Waiver | 01/10/2017 | Harpole Construction, Inc. v. Medallion Midstream, LLC |
In this adversary proceeding, Defendant sought a jury trial on Plaintiff's claims, and its counterclaims. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the jury demand. The Court granted the motion to strike, concluding that Defendant "waived" it's right to a jury trial by filing a claim against the estate. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Administrative Claims, Assumption and Rejection, Classification of Claims, Time | 12/23/2016 | Flying Star Cafes, Inc. |
Following rejection, the landlord sought allowance of an administrative expense claim for, inter alia, post-petition rent, insurance, property taxes, and repairs. The Court determined that under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3), the landlord is entitled to an administrative claim for unpaid post-petition lease obligations without demonstrating a benefit to the estate. The Court also determined that to comply with § 365(d)(4), which sets the deadline for assumption or rejection, the motion must be timely filed; the Court need not approve the proposed assumption or rejection within the deadline. After reviewing the lease to determine the Debtor's obligations, the Court awarded $29,991.15 as an administrative expense. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Cause | 12/23/2016 | United Tort Claimants v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC. |
Following phase 2 of the trial on plaintiffs’ negligence claims, the Court determined that Defendant’s breach was the proximate cause and cause in fact of the injuries of most of the Plaintiffs. Defendant’s comparative fault in causing the harm was limited to 16.5%. Factual allegations in the Plaintiffs’ complaint were judicial admissions. The Court also analyzed the borrowed servant doctrine applicable under tort law. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Attorneys Fees, Costs of Litigation, Fees, Sanctions | 12/23/2016 | Lester G. Hunt |
Following a permanent loan modification and a number of contested matters, Chapter 13 Debtor sought attorney fees and costs from Lender. Debtor argued he should be awarded attorney fees and costs under a number of theories, including FRBP 7054, bad faith, discovery sanctions, and contempt sanctions. The Court declined to award costs or fees. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Abstention, Attorneys Fees, Dismissal, Jurisdiction | 12/19/2016 | Wilbert W. Salazar and Stephanie Rae Salazar |
Debtor's former counsel asked the Court to enter a money judgment against debtors for the attorneys fees and costs allowed in a dismissed chapter 13 case. After analyzing the definition of "judgment" in Rules 9001 and 9002 and the relevant case law, the Court determined that a final fee order is a judgment that establishes the debtor's debt to counsel. The Court also determined that regardless of whether it had jurisdiction over post-dismissal collection of allowed fees, it would abstain and leave collection matters to the state court. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Jurisdiction, Standing | 12/12/2016 | Robert Yaquinto, Jr. v. John N. Ehrman |
Defendant moved to dismiss claims in adversary proceeding under FRCP 12(b)(1), arguing that the Plaintiff did not have standing to assert the claims. The Court dismissed the case, concluding that Plaintiff did not have standing, because the plan failed to reserve the claims at issue under 11 U.S.C. 1123(b)(3). |
Judge David T. Thuma |