Click here to view.
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint, concluding that the proposed new claims were barred by the confirmed Chapter 11 Subchapter V Plan. The claims arose from pre-confirmation conduct and were not preserved. The Court also rejected the attempt to extend the automatic stay to a non-debtor guarantor, finding no unusual circumstances to justify such relief. With the only original claim previously denied, the adversary proceeding was dismissed.
The Court granted the Defendants’ second motion to dismiss, finding that the Plaintiff failed to adequately plead a claim for nondischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). The Court held that the alleged fraudulent conduct was attributable to the Defendants’ LLC rather than the individual Defendants and that the Plaintiff failed to allege any specific fraudulent acts by the individuals themselves. Additionally, the Plaintiff did not properly allege facts to pierce the corporate veil under applicable Arizona law, which governed the LLC.
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, Citibank, N.A. The Plaintiffs alleged that Citibank violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act by continuing collection efforts after being notified that the debtor was represented by counsel. However, the Court found that the notice was ineffective because it was not sent to Citibank’s registered agent, as explicitly required by statute. Since the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, the Court held that liberal construction in favor of consumers could not override the failure to comply with the statute’s specific notice requirement.
The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that the complaint failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity as required under Rule 9(b). Because the state court judgment lacked specific findings of fraud, issue preclusion did not apply. Although the deadline for filing dischargeability complaints had passed, an amendment was still permissible under Rule 15(c) as it related back to the original filing. Thus, the court granted dismissal without prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint to meet the heightened pleading standard.
The court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment finding that the state court judgment against the Defendant is nondischargeable. The state court judgment, based on fraud and misrepresentation, was entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The court held that these findings satisfied the elements for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2) and declined to address the alternative grounds under § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6). The defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied as moot.
The court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment finding that the state court judgment against the Defendant is nondischargeable. The state court judgment, based on fraud and misrepresentation, was entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The court held that these findings satisfied the elements for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2) and declined to address the alternative grounds under § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6). The defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied as moot.
The court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment finding that the state court judgment against the Defendant is nondischargeable. The state court judgment, based on fraud and misrepresentation, was entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The court held that these findings satisfied the elements for nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2) and declined to address the alternative grounds under § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6). The defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied as moot.
The court grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss on Plaintiff’s complaint attempting to avoid a post-petition foreclosure sale of property of the estate. The court determined that § 362(c)(4) satisfied the “authorization” component necessary to defeat the Plaintiff’s complaint seeking relief under § 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, the court held that although the bankruptcy estate retained an interest in the property, the estate’s interest was in any excess proceeds resulting from a valid foreclosure sale.
Following a motion for reconsideration on an order granting a fee application with a reduction for unproductive travel time, the court evaluated its decision on the appropriate billable rate for travel time. Consistent with its original ruling, the court concludes that it maintains discretion to review an employment agreement and make adjustments accordingly. The court upholds its determination that unproductive travel time is compensable at one-half a professional’s normal hourly rate.
In the context of a professional’s application for compensation, the court addressed the appropriate billable rate for travel time. The court concludes that time traveling, and not performing legal services while traveling, is compensable at one-half a professional’s normal hourly rate.
Consistent with the court’s previous determination that the Defendant willfully violated the stay, damages were assessed under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(k)(1). The court awarded the amount of the garnished wages and related attorney fees. Ultimately, the court imposes damages upon the Defendant in the amount of $13,025.72.
The court grants, in part, the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his complaint for willful violation of the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). In that regard, there is no material dispute as to the Defendant’s liability based upon her actions regarding her garnishment of the Chapter 7 Plaintiff-Debtor’s post-petition wages. The court set a subsequent hearing to determine damages.
The court determines that the Plaintiff’s state court judgment against the Defendant is non-dischargeable: the Plaintiff meets her burden of proof under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The Defendant misrepresented himself as a licensed Contractor.
The Court found the IRS in contempt of the Debtor’s discharge order and awarded $498.21 in damages. Attorney’s fees were denied on the basis that the attorney was representing his spouse without a fee agreement and there were no out of pocket legal expenses that could be recovered under 26 U.S.C. § 7430.
In overruling the objection of the United States Trustee and denying its motion to convert, the court found the Debtor’s proposed Chapter 11 plan of reorganization to be feasible based upon the financial projections and the commitment of the Debtor’s principals. Additionally, the court was unpersuaded by the United States Trustee’s assertion that the exculpation clause in the Debtor’s plan violated the Fourth Circuit’s instruction in Berhmann v. Nat’l Heritage Found., 663 F.3d 704 (4th Cir. 2011).
In denying Mannington’s motion to dismiss and granting the Chapter 7 trustee’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the viability of Mannington’s judgment lien was not extended beyond the initial 10-year period such that the Chapter 7 trustee can avoid the purported lien. In that regard, the court was unpersuaded by Mannington’s argument that the debtor’s several bankruptcy cases extended the effective period of its lien by more than 1,300 days. Notably, no automatic stay existed in December 2018 when Mannington’s lien was set to expire.
The court grants a creditor summary judgment and denies the Chapter 7 debtor’s anticipated discharge under § 727(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, the could found as unsatisfactory the debtor’s uncorroborated explanation of his expenditure of over $1,000,000 in the few years before seeking Chapter 7 relief.
The Court denied an exception to discharge complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) that alleged defalcation or fraud with acting in a fiduciary capacity or, in the alternative, embezzlement.
The trustee alleged that the defendant, a member of the debtor’s board of directors, created a direct competitor to the debtor and took other actions for his personal gain to the detriment of the debtor. The defendant asserted that an arbitration clause in his employment contract should be enforced to adjudicate the trustee’s claims. The Court, however, found that the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, constructive fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation of facts, and a violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, were not subject to the employment agreement’s arbitration clause. Additionally, the Court determined that the trustee’s causes of action survived challenges based on the “gist of the action” and the “economic loss” doctrine.
The Court denied a motion to stay pending appeal regarding the Court’s Order on Summary Judgment and Order on Confirmation. The Court denied the stay, among other reasons, because the Appellants failed to show that they were likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal.