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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel, Dischargeability, Issue Preclusion, Nondischargeability | 04/10/2023 | Pidcock v. McCune |
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on validity, existence, and amount of debt owed by Debtor-Defendants relating to stock purchases and a loan, as established by a state court judgment, as well as non-dischargeability of the debt on the basis of fraud under § 523(a)(2) and securities violations under § 523(a)(19). The Court granted summary judgment with respect to the validity, existence, and amount of debt because the state court judgment had claim preclusive effect on such matters. However, the Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims. Regarding the fraud dischargeability claim, the state court judgment did not have (ii) claim preclusive effect because that claim is unique to bankruptcy or (ii) issue preclusive effect because the issue was not actually litigated, and the state court’s amended judgment removed the finding of fraud. Regarding the securities violation dischargeability claim, the Court ruled that § 523(a)(19) overrides the traditional “actually litigated” requirement for issue preclusion. The Court then found that the state court judgment was silent on whether it was based on a securities violation and a review of the complaint did not clarify the basis for the judgment. Resolving a split in the case law, the Court found that it has authority under § 523(a)(19) to determine with there is a securities violation but denied summary judgment on the § 523(a)(19) claim because material facts are in genuine dispute.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Attorneys Fees, Chapter 11, Jurisdiction | 03/31/2023 | Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe |
Chapter 11 debtor moved for entry of a final decree. United States Trustee objected, arguing that the case was not yet fully administered because some final fee applications had not yet been filed or approved. The court granted the motion, ruling that the estate had been fully administered and that any fee application contested matters could be heard post-closing. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Confirmation, Dismissal or Conversion, Subchapter V | 03/15/2023 | S-Tek 1, LLC |
In a subchapter V case, after denial of confirmation of Debtor’s plan of reorganization and while a creditor’s motion to convert or dismiss the bankruptcy case was under advisement, Debtor filed another plan and a motion to establish confirmation procedures. In the alternative, Debtor asked the Court to approve a structured dismissal. First, the Court observed that Debtor had the right to file preconfirmation plan modifications and treated its preconfirmation amended plans as plan modifications. Second, the Court rejected Debtor’s contention that subchapter V imposes no time limit after denial of confirmation to file a new plan. Third, the Court observed that although a subchapter V debtor may need an extension of time under the stricter standard set forth in § 1189(b) to file another plan following denial of confirmation, the Court did not need to decide the issue. Instead, the Court applied the more liberal standard adopted by courts in chapter 12 cases for granting additional time to file another plan following denial of confirmation and ruled that Debtor would not be given time to file another plan. The Court explained that Debtor had a full and fair opportunity to seek confirmation of its plan, the case had been pending for almost two years, the parties had incurred enormous legal fees, and the new plan was basically an attempt to correct evidentiary gaps in the confirmation hearing already held. Fourth, the Court found that “cause” existed to convert or dismiss the chapter 11 case. Fifth, the Court denied Debtor’s request that the Court approve a structured dismissal because it was not feasible. Debtor intended to continue operating the business, but Debtor’s secured creditor could foreclose its lien on any accounts receivable that Debtor generated. The Court found that Debtor could not protect the receivables by granting a purchase money lien. Finally, the Court found that it was in the best interests of creditors and the estate to convert the case to chapter 7 instead of dismissing the case. The Court relied in making that decision on the secured creditor’s agreement to a chapter 7 carve-out.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 13, Confirmation, Reconsideration | 03/10/2023 | Jody Lee Beach and Rhonda B. Beach |
Creditor moved for reconsideration of the court’s order confirming a chapter 13 plan. The creditor made eight arguments in support of the reconsideration motion. The court considered and rejected each argument.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Claim Objection, Professionals, Reconsideration | 03/03/2023 | Las Uvas Valley Dairies |
Liquidating trustee moved the court to reconsider it ruling that former counsel for the debtor in possession could be retained by a creditor asserting a claim against the liquidating trust. The court analyzed each argument in support of the motion to reconsider and rejected each.reco
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability | 03/01/2023 | Alvarado v. Chavez-Medina |
Plaintiffs filed a non-dischargeability complaint under § 523(a)(6) asserting that Defendant willfully and maliciously injured Plaintiffs by driving on the shoulder of the freeway at a high speed and crashing into Plaintiffs’ vehicle causing serious injuries to Plaintiffs. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court agreed that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to meet the willful and malicious standard, which requires: 1) an intentional act and an intentional harm, or an intentional act undertaken with the subjective belief that the consequences of the act were substantially certain to occur (willful); and 2) an intentional, wrongful act taken without justification or excuse (malicious). Instead of dismissing the complaint, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend under Rule 15.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion, Rooker-Feldman, Summary Judgment | 02/15/2023 | Richard Jaramillo |
Creditor filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that a prior state court foreclosure judgment precluded debtor from contesting its motion for relief from stay under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Rooker-Feldman was inapplicable and creditor did not satisfy all elements necessary to apply either claim or issue preclusion.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Exemptions, Property of the Estate | 02/10/2023 | Gregory Jon Piskiel |
Debtor held a survivor benefit from his father’s pension plan. The benefit paid a monthly amount for the debtor’s life. Debtor claimed the interest exempt and the chapter 7 trustee objected. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court rule that the interest was not property of the estate, pursuant to Sec. 541(c)(2), which excludes interests in spendthrift trusts.ex
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Confirmation | 02/06/2023 | S-Tek 1, LLC |
The Court considered whether to confirm Debtor’s third plan of reorganization pursuant to § 1191(b), which governs non-consensual subchapter V plans. Under the plan, to defeat a creditor’s § 1111(b) election, Debtor proposed surrendering and replacing all or substantially all of the creditor’s collateral, which included the equipment and vehicles Debtor used to operate its business and most of its cash and accounts receivable. The Court found that Debtor failed to show it would have the financial ability to replace surrendered assets necessary for it to maintain its operations. Therefore, the Court denied plan confirmation for failure to meet the feasibility requirements of § 1129(a)(11) and § 1191(c)(3), made applicable by § 1191(b). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Attorneys Fees, Chapter 11 | 02/06/2023 | S-Tek 1, LLC |
The United States Trustee and the Subchapter V Trustee objected to Debtor’s counsel’s fee application, arguing that the requested fees were not reflective of the results obtained. Debtor’s proposed chapter 11 plan proposed to pay attorney’s anticipated allowed unpaid fees of $210,00 in full at the rate of $5,000 per month while unsecured non-priority creditors would receive only $45,000 over five years. Debtor pursued an adversary proceeding that had the potential to eliminate its primary creditor’s claim and generate substantial funds for the estate, but the litigation was not successful. Had Debtor not pursued the litigation, Debtor’s business would have ceased and unsecured priority and non-priority creditors would have received nothing. The Court determined that under Tenth Circuit precedent, it was required to apply the Johnson factors, including the “results obtained” factor, as well as the § 330 factors to assess the reasonableness of requested fees. However, “results obtained” is only one factor, and the Court in its discretion may give whatever weight to that factor it deems appropriate under the circumstances of the case. In exercising its discretion, the Court determined after applying the §330 and Johnson factors that counsel’s fees should be allowed in the amount requested. Under the circumstances, where Debtor’s only viable alternative was to pursue the litigation in its effort to propose a plan that would provide a dividend to unsecured creditors, the attorney’s decision to perform the services was reasonable and appropriate when the services were rendered. The “results obtained” included getting a decision on the merits of the adversary proceeding, which all parties agreed had to be resolved before the Court could hold a confirmation hearing, and valuation of the primary secured creditor’s collateral. Even though Debtor did not “win” the litigation, the litigation was of importance to the administration of the estate.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |