What is a Bankruptcy Discharge of Judgment?

Useful Rulings on Bankruptcy Discharge of Judgment

Recent Rulings on Bankruptcy Discharge of Judgment

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

“When a bankruptcy discharge is entered, it replaces the automatic stay with a permanent injunction against such judicial proceedings.” (Weakly-Hoyt v. Foster (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 928, 931, citations omitted; see also 11 U.S.C § 362(c)(2)(C).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONE NINO AND NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, A PARTNERSHIP VS NASRIN SHAKERI NINO, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS GENERAL PARTNER, ETC., ET AL.

“When a bankruptcy discharge is entered, it replaces the automatic stay with a permanent injunction against such judicial proceedings.” (Weakly-Hoyt v. Foster (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 928, 931, citations omitted; see also 11 U.S.C § 362(c)(2)(C).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

A bankruptcy discharge "operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any debt [subject to such discharge] as a personal liability of the debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived." 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.

· Exhibit 3: Notice of Entry of Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and Termination of Levine’s Automatic Litigation Stay, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, filed on October 17, 2017. · Exhibit 4: Request for Dismissal of Defendant Claire Levine, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, signed by the court on February 26, 2018. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) C.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

A bankruptcy discharge "operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any debt [subject to such discharge] as a personal liability of the debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived." 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

AULT CHIROPRACTIC, LLP VS ICRCO, INC

(2) Bankruptcy As an alternative basis for the invalidity of the Ohio judgment, iCRco asserts that its bankruptcy discharge invalidated Ault LLC’s claim.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

CALIFORNIA AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM, INC. VS DDC GROUP, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff’s attorney declares that the dismissal was mistakenly made as to the entire case, when the purpose was solely to dismiss DDC following its bankruptcy discharge. (Motion, Thai Decl., ¶¶2-4.) In opposition, CCD submits only a declaration by its counsel, who improperly opines that Plaintiff’s attorney’s error is insufficient to warrant relief. The Court admonishes CCD that any opposition to the Motion must comply with the requirements of Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IVAN RENE MOORE VS KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG

.); (7) this is a change in circumstances of which Plaintiff is fully aware; and (8) she has received a bankruptcy discharge for any damages Plaintiff could claim to have against her arising from her alleged taking of property as found in the Interlocutory Judgment. (Id.) Analysis “The facts essential to jurisdiction for a contempt proceeding are (1) the making of the order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance, [and] (4) wilful disobedience of the order.”

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2019

ALEXANDER LU VS RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC

On the merits, the Court finds that the new allegations of the SAC fail to sufficiently correct the deficiencies previously noted in this Court’s August 16, 2019 minute order sustaining the demurrer to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), including the bar of the statute of limitations, as well as the judicial estoppel and res judicata bars flowing from plaintiff’s bankruptcy, bankruptcy proceedings and filings, and bankruptcy discharge.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.

· Exhibit 3: Notice of Entry of Bankruptcy Discharge Injunction and Termination of Levine’s Automatic Litigation Stay, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, filed on October 17, 2017. · Exhibit 4: Request for Dismissal of Defendant Claire Levine, filed in Sylvester Stewart v. Gerald Goldstein, et al., LASC Case No: BC430809, signed by the court on February 26, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SEGUI VS. ORIGINAL MIKE'S ENTERPRISES LLC

First, because bankruptcy discharge is a defense equally applicable to every member of the class, Segui is not atypical. OMRM’s Chapter 11 plan was confirmed on December 14, 2016, and the class period only runs to December 16, 2016. The class, as defined, appears to consist entirely of persons whose claims against OMRM arguably were discharged in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy discharge defense can be adjudicated on a classwide basis.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

JAMES SPARANO VS SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, A BUSINESS ENTITY ET AL.

However, because SLS was not required to send him monthly statements due to the bankruptcy discharge, it and the Loan owner did not waive their right to foreclose on the Property. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim that SLS cannot foreclose or collect six years of Loan interest from the foreclosure sale proceeds fails. (See, Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1088.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

LEASON VS. NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE

The SAC adds four causes of action: intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violation of bankruptcy discharge injunctions, and unfair competition. (Harris v. Wachovia Mortg. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023; see Community Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Com. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.) Fifth Cause of Action (Wrongful Foreclosure). The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

HUMBERTO LOPEZ-VELOZ VS SIGIFREDO R HERNANDEZ

At this time, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings, contending he recently received a bankruptcy discharge that includes Plaintiff’s claims in this suit. Defendant provides judicially noticeable evidence that he received a discharge of all of his debts, including those at issue in this lawsuit, on 5/21/18. Defendant timely and properly served the motion on Plaintiff. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 9/03/19. Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

MARTIN P MONTOYA VS. MELODY L GROVER

Mason argues that because Grover was named in Mason's bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy discharge injunction prohibits any further action against Mason. Grover says the injunction does not apply to fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Thus, Grover impliedly concedes that the injunction applies to the new claims. Finally, Grover expressly acknowledges that further discovery and all new dates will be needed if the motion is granted. This case has already been pending for more than two years.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DORAN VS. O'CONNOR-ROSE

While the Court may ultimately find these facts untrue, Defendant has established a triable issue of fact i.e. a contract, agreement, partnership or joint venture that arose after the bankruptcy discharge. Any such contract, agreement, partnership or joint venture would not be the subject of res judicata. Defendant also briefly makes an argument that the failure to disclose the contract, and partnership/joint venture results in those items being left in the bankruptcy estate.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

DORAN VS. O'CONNOR-ROSE

While the Court may ultimately find these facts untrue, Defendant has established a triable issue of fact i.e. a contract, agreement, partnership or joint venture that arose after the bankruptcy discharge. Any such contract, agreement, partnership or joint venture would not be the subject of res judicata. Defendant also briefly makes an argument that the failure to disclose the contract, and partnership/joint venture results in those items being left in the bankruptcy estate.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

VALKO V. CORRY

The case is ordered DISMISSED pursuant to the bankruptcy discharge and the request of the parties. The plaintiff shall give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

SERGEO GOMEZ VS VER, ET AL.

Thus, a state court may consider the applicability of a bankruptcy discharge when it is raised as a defense to an action. (Local Loan Co. v. Hunt (1934) 292 U.S. 234, 240 [“(T)he effect of a discharge in bankruptcy is a matter to be determined by any court in which the discharge may be pleaded.”].) “[A] demurrer based on an affirmative defense will be sustained only where the face of the complaint discloses that the action is necessarily barred by the defense.” (Casterson v.

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROMERO VS. FULLERTON SURGICAL CENTER

To the extent that Defendants wish to reverse bankruptcy discharge orders, such matters must be pursued with the appropriate court. (See 11 USC § 727(a), (d),(e).) Based on the evidence in the records, the Court now rules as follows: 1. In light of a bankruptcy-discharge order granted to Plaintiff Romero on 9/24/2018, Plaintiff is relieved from any personal liability to the Defendants for costs of suit as reflected in the Memorandum of Costs on-file herein on 5/8/2018.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

PADILLA V. WECOSIGN, INC.

This Court hereby strikes all of the affirmative defenses save for the First Affirmative Defense for a Bankruptcy Discharge. This shall remain in the answer just to avoid any effort by plaintiff to re-insert those claims this Court already found to be in violation of the bankruptcy injunction. Plaintiff’s alternate request for monetary sanctions is granted in addition to the issue sanction noted above. Counsel seeks $4,356.60 – representing costs and fourteen (14) hours of attorney time.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

JOSE VALLEJO VS. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

Plaintiff argues that Farmers has not carried its burden because the evidence shows that the policy obligates Farmers to pay the judgment and Farmers, knowing of the judgment and the law and the policy provisions, refuses to pay by arguing the Savoy bankruptcy discharge, and attempting to challenge the underlying judgment.

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2019

VALADEZ VS BERRY GENETICS INC

However, Plaintiff's representation that his claims include those that accrued after the bankruptcy discharge is not supported by the allegations in the complaint. His breach of contract claim is based upon "Selling Plaintiff damaged and diseased strawberry plants in the amount of $54,000." See Comp. Breach of Contract Attachment ¶BC-2. This allegedly occurred from October 2013 – January 2014. Id.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2019

VALADEZ VS BERRY GENETICS INC

However, Plaintiff's representation that his claims include those that accrued after the bankruptcy discharge is not supported by the allegations in the complaint. His breach of contract claim is based upon "Selling Plaintiff damaged and diseased strawberry plants in the amount of $54,000." See Comp. Breach of Contract Attachment ¶BC-2. This allegedly occurred from October 2013 – January 2014. Id.

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2019

GRABOWSKI VS. GRABOWSKI

However, it appears that Patrick’s in rem rights with respect to the Edna Property were not eliminated by Laurence’s Bankruptcy discharge. 2) The Motion should be denied because there is no statutory procedure for “expunging” an abstract of judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2019

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.