General Issues in Bankruptcy

Useful Rulings on Bankruptcy – Federal

Recent Rulings on Bankruptcy – Federal

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Background On August 30, 2016, Dispatch Transportation, LLC dba Windrow Earth Transport (“Dispatch”) filed its Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition; on September 1, 2016, Dispatch filed a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings.” On November 8, 2016, a Declaratory Judgment as between Plaintiff and City was filed. On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff dismissed its second and fourth causes of action, with prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

JOSE GUEVARA, ET AL. VS WALTER J RODE, ET AL.

(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 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AUSTIN SKAGGS V. JENNIFER NGO

Defendants filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy, case was stayed – Bankruptcy order issued 3/16/20, Mediation was completed 7/16/18, Plaintiff posted CCP sec. 631 fees 3/5/18. Counsel to discuss status of discovery, how to proceed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

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

On July 9, 2020, the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed its “Statement Regarding Scope of Automatic Stay Arising from Nasrin Shakeri Nino’s Bankruptcy.” The filing of a bankruptcy proceeding operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial . . . action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case.” (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).)

  • 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.

On July 9, 2020, the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee filed its “Statement Regarding Scope of Automatic Stay Arising from Nasrin Shakeri Nino’s Bankruptcy.” The filing of a bankruptcy proceeding operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial . . . action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the [bankruptcy] case.” (11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT INC ET AL VS MEISTER & NUNES PC ET AL

“[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 further response to a demand, 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. §2031.310, subd. (h).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

CORREA V. IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION

Monetary Sanctions 2 Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $3,147.50 against Defendant and its counsel. 3 Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, which states in 4 relevant part: 5 The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully 6 makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ARTURO REYES V. IVARY MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL.

Defendant’s principal declares that, based on the advice of defendant’s corporate accountant and bankruptcy counsel, the proposed settlement is the most generous defendant can fund without experiencing bankruptcy, resulting in loss of employment for the putative class members. IV. Provisions of the Settlement The non-reversionary gross settlement amount is $400,000.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

GARY GEVORKYAN VS JMDIAZ INC ET AL

Sanctions With respect to Requests for Admissions, CCP section 2033.280(c) provides: “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 admissions necessitated this motion.” CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Concurrently, in June 2019, Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy action to determine the validity and priority of the Deed of Trust. (Compl. ¶ 62.) In September 2019, Plaintiff’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy action was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to make payments to Defendants. (Compl. ¶ 67.) In November 2019, the bankruptcy court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s “bankruptcy case ha[d] been dismissed.” (Compl. ¶ 70.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

WHITNEY SPRINGER VS KEITH STEPHENSON, ET AL.

"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 further 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., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KAPLAN V. CARINGELLA

However, Defendant asserts that he is unable to pay his share of the costs of arbitration, as he is presently a debtor in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy individual debt adjustment plan that requires him to pay $3,100 per month. He requests the Court require Plaintiff to front costs of arbitration or waive his right to arbitration. (Opp. at pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff disputes Defendant’s assertion that Defendant is unable to pay for arbitration costs. (Reply, at pp. 5-7.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KENNETH ADLER, ET AL. VS SHIRLEE LYNN BLISS

He also filed this derivative suit against the association Defendant Federal Homeowners Relief Foundation (“Foundation”), which Stern is the managing trustee and Kenneth Adler is her successor. He alleges that he paid $7,000 to Bliss for legal services and that she caused her clients to lose title to a parcel of residential realty then worth $500,000.00.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LABOR COMMISSIONER VS MORSHEDA J HOSIAN

Additionally, on January 30, 2020, Judgment Debtor filed a Notice of Stay Due to Bankruptcy Proceeding, demonstrating that on November 7, 2019, Judgment Debtor filed a bankruptcy case under Chapter 7 of the US Bankruptcy Code. An “automatic stay” arises when a petition is filed under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. (11 U.S.C. § 362.) Accordingly, the instant action is stayed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANURAG GUPTA VS SHARISE MARIE BARBOSA

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

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDRANIK AVEDYAN VS ALIS AVEDYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The argument is also made that the undisputed material facts establish that a settlement agreement with the Chapter 7 Trustee and the Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance did not extinguish defendant Keshishian’s interest in the Deed of Trust. The moving papers concede that moving defendant in 2012 filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, and was granted a discharge, but had failed to disclose as an asset his interest in the subject property and the deed of trust in his bankruptcy proceeding.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JAIME ALFARO, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

(g) . . . (1) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . .

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SAFAEI ENTERPRISES INC. VS KOLAHI

Regarding Section 108(c)(2), if a creditor’s time to do something, expires during the period of a bankruptcy, this federal law appears to allow the creditor to take the required step, within a 30-day grace period after the bankruptcy stay ends. (See In re Spirtos (9th Cir. 2000) 221 F.3d 1079, 1080–1081; Inco Development Corp. v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1023–1024.) This does not appear to be of aid to the MP here, either.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KIRK PORTER VS ALLAIRE RUEL JOHNSON

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

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDREW HOLCOMB VS. ACE HIGH CASINO RENTALS, LLC

Notably, Ace High has not filed for bankruptcy. Although Ace High argues that an assignment for the benefit of creditors operates “like” a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, there is a key difference: a bankruptcy filing comes with an automatic stay, while an assignment for the benefit of creditors does not. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court again encourages Defendant to share all relevant financial information with Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA VS. EQUALTOX, INC., APC

Pursuant to CCP section 2030.300(d), 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 further 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DINORAH ECHAVARRIA VS BOB PSZYK, ET AL.

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required. Here, RFAs were propounded by the Moving Parties on August 29, 2019. To the Court’s knowledge, Plaintiff has failed to provide any responses as of December 30, 2019 (the date these Motions were filed).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS EMANUEL DIAZ, ET AL.

Finally, 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 a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MELISSA THOMAS VS ROBERT THOMAS

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

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DINORAH ECHAVARRIA VS BOB PSZYK, ET AL.

It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (CCP §2033.280.) No prior attempt to resolve the matter informally is required. Here, RFAs were propounded by the Moving Parties on August 29, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 135     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.