General Issues in Bankruptcy

Useful Rulings on Bankruptcy – Federal

Recent Rulings on Bankruptcy – Federal

K. V. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Further, CCP Section 2031.320(c) authorizes a court to impose issue or evidentiary sanctions pursuant to CCP Section 2023.010, It provides: Except as provided in subdivision (d), if a party then fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Sanctions “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)

  • Hearing

STANLEY VS JASON LILLY ASSOCIATES

In the context of bankruptcy proceedings, it is well understood that a trustee, as the representative of the bankruptcy estate, is the real party in interest and is the only party with standing to prosecute causes of action belonging to the estate once the bankruptcy petition has been filed. The commencement of Chapter 7 bankruptcy extinguishes a debtor's legal rights and interests in any pending litigation, and transfers those rights to the trustee, acting on behalf of the bankruptcy estate.

  • Hearing

FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICER BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ARMEN MELIKYAN, ET AL.

A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition was filed on August 25, 2020. RULING: Granted. Plaintiff BMW Financial Services NA, LLC moves to deem Request for Admissions (set one) admitted. Plaintiff served Defendant, West Hollywood Collision Center aka West Hollywood Collision Center, Inc. and Defendant Onnik Kazanchian aka Nick Kaz with request for admissions on March 12, 2020. No responses have been received. Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a-b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PAGE BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC. VS DAVIT MUKHSYAN, ET AL.

In addition, it is “mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) ORDER For the reasons set forth above, the court orders as follows.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ARMEN MANASSERIAN, ET AL. VS DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICA

On June 27, 2008 and January 9, 2009, Tsilikyan and Guruyan, respectively, each filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. (Id., Exs. 37-38.) On February 18, 2010, Deutsche Bank and Gumruyan entered into a loan modification agreement, which cured the default. (Id., Ex. 5 [Loan Modification Agreemetn]; Gumruyan Depo. at p. 44].)

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MERCEDES PALOMEQUE MENDEZ VS AMELIA SEGOVIA, ET AL.

LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), a “party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010).”

  • Hearing

PIETRO V NPI FUND ET AL.

7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that party deponent or against the part with whom the deponent is affiliated.

  • Hearing

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS RASHEED COURTNEY, ET AL.

Discussion If a party fails to obey an order compelling responses to interrogatories and inspection demands, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

  • Hearing

PIERRE CHARBAT VS VALENCIA CAR WASH INC

(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 . . . . (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHUN YU WORKS USA INC VS ROSE YANG ET AL

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), if a party to whom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, and for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHAUNA JOYCE MORGAN, ET AL. VS MAGDALENA GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

Osorio, Gutierrez and Does 1-10 for: Fraudulent Transfer On July 15, 2019, a “Notice of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Case” was filed as to H. Osorio, indicating that the bankruptcy case had been filed (i.e., on July 10, 2019); that day, H. Osorio’s and Gutierrez’s defaults were entered. On September 17, 2019, a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings” was filed as to H. Osorio. On December 17, 2019, an “Order and Notice of Dismissal Arising from Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing” was filed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

.; (2) Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Debt, and for Denial of Discharge filed November 12, 2007, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Case Number 2:07-ap-01820-ER, entitled In re: William Jesse Hite, etc., et al./Cleve M. Bennett, M.D., etc. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

C W DRIVER INC VS LEGENDARY STRUCTURES INC ET AL

(See R-SSF No. 48, which cites to the same evidence as in R-SSF No. 4, discussed above; Decl. of Kashani ¶¶6-10; O-COE, Exh. 10 (RFA Nos. 16, 17; Exh. 2 §§3.1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2 (pgs. 127-128 of PDF); Exh. 3, pg. 1 (pg. 143 of PDF), Decl. of Paredes ¶¶57-61; Exh. 12: Stitch Federal Action Depo 73:16-17, 168:12-19; Exh. 13: Stitch Depo 113:20-114:2 (pgs. 378-379, 386-387 of PDF); Exh. 14: Paredes Federal Action Depo 28:15-29:21 (pgs. 395-396 of PDF); Exh. 8 (pgs. 488-489 of PDF); Exh. 24 (pgs. 635-642 of PDF); Exh

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ROMAN JACKSON VS AIRGAS USA, LLC, ET AL.

Sanctions Pursuant to Section 2030.290, “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION V. ALBERTINE OMANI M.D.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), states, in part, “It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” Therefore, the court awards a monetary sanction of $534.00 ($395.00 + $79.00 ($395.00/5 = $79.00) + $60.00 = $534.00) (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c) and Cal.

  • Hearing

STEPHEN EIGES VS ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

Request for Admissions Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions.

  • Hearing

MARCUS MARQUEZ VS SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC

As to the motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICER BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ARMEN MELIKYAN, ET AL.

A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition was filed on August 25, 2020. RULING: Granted. Plaintiff BMW Financial Services NA, LLC moves to compel responses to Form Interrogatories (set one). Plaintiff served Defendant, West Hollywood Collision Center aka West Hollywood Collision Center, Inc. and Defendant Onnik Kazanchian aka Nick Kaz with Form Interrogatories on March 12, 2020. No responses have been received. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TOWER PARK PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS HUGHES INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defendants argue that the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling dismissing the adversary complaint with prejudice bars this action. (See Dem. at 6:26-7:11.) Defendants argue that the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court but left one issue open. (See Dem. at 9:11.). Since Defendants argue that the rulings under federal law are preclusive, the Court applies federal law for the purposes of res judicata.

  • Hearing

STEPHEN EIGES VS ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

Request for Admissions Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(b), a party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to RFA does not result in automatic admissions.

  • Hearing

MAHVASH MAZGANI VS HOFFMAN LA BREA LLC ET AL

Section 16105 concerns a proceeding under the federal Tax Reform Act of 1969, which this clearly is not. In sum, the evidence Cross-Complainant argues he just learned during the bankruptcy proceeding either is not new evidence or is evidence concerning allegations already existing in the earlier cross-complaints.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

DITECH FINANCIAL LLC V. MONIQUE MCTEER

On February 11, 2019, Ditech filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On March 6, 2019, McTeer filed a Roe amendment to her cross-complaint, adding the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) as a cross-defendant. On July 8, 2020, the bankruptcy court entered an Order Granting Plan Administrator’s Fifth Omnibus Motion to Enforce Injunctive Provisions of Plan and Confirmation Order which barred McTeer’s monetary claims against Ditech.

  • Hearing

MANUEL BOROBIA VS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., (A "LENDER"), ET AL.

Plaintiff in opposition presents extensive legal citation and argument regarding fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy, the Federal Truth in Lending Act, and due process trial rights. Claim Preclusion Defendant first addresses the claim preclusion based on prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff Borobia, including Superior Court action Borobia v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al. (BC657853), a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petition, and a complaint in the United States District Court, Borobia v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ROBERT S. SHUMAKE LIVING TRUST 1994 VS JASON Q. WILSON TRUST DATED OCTOBER 18, 2007 ET AL

With exceptions not applicable here, if a party fails to obey an order compelling further responses to interrogatories or requests for production, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” CCP §§ 2030.300(e) & 2031.310(i).

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 151     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.