Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Court Cases

Search
  1. In Re Franklin (1995)

    This motion to transfer venue of an action removed from state court presents a poorly understood question regarding the concurrent jurisdiction of state and federal courts to determine whether particular debts are discharged in a bankruptcy case. Here, the debtor in his bankruptcy schedules omitted debts that are allegedly based on indemnification, contribution, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud and was sued post-bankruptcy in a fourteen-count, eight-defendant state court action. The [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Misc. No. 94-M206-C-7. Adv. No. 94-2540
  2. In Re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd. (2006)

    A creditor contends these joint liquidations under the laws of St. Vincent and the Grenadines ("SVG") should be recognized as foreign "nonmain," as opposed to "main," proceedings under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1502(4)-(5). The answer turns on the situs of the chapter 15 debtors' "center of main interests," which term is not defined and requires a fact-based inquiry in which the default position focuses on the registered office.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: 06-22652-C-15, 06-22655-C-15, 06-22657-C-15
  3. In Re Mohring (1992)

    This is a motion to avoid a lien on putatively exempt property under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). The question is whether the lack of objection to a claimed exemption of property strips the court of power to deny a motion to avoid a lien on that property as unsupported by evidence. The question is of practical importance in the wake of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1644, 118 L.Ed.2d 280 (1992), enforcing the exemption by [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 91-27118-C-7
  4. In Re Kidwell (1993)

    Must the court dismiss an involuntary petition merely because the sole petitioner circumvented the three-petitioner requirement by intentionally misrepresenting the number of creditors even though three other creditors oppose dismissal and demand their statutory right to join in the petition?[1] It is a clash between 11 U.S.C. § 303(b), which requires three petitioners whenever there are at least twelve creditors eligible to petition, and 11 U.S.C. § 303(c), which authorizes eligible [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 92-28334-C-7
  5. In Re Costa (1994)

    What is a law-abiding bank to do? It obeyed state law and froze $541 when served with a facially valid writ of execution. Now the debtor demands that the bank pay $10,000 in punitive damages on the theory that honoring a writ of execution violated the bankruptcy discharge injunction with respect to a debt that the debtors had intentionally omitted from their bankruptcy schedules.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 89-25188-C-7. Adv. No. 93-2616
  6. In Re Plaza Hotel Corp. (1990)

    The retainer will be ordered disgorged as a sanction, inter alia, for failing to disclose under Bankruptcy Rule 2014 that the "prepetition retainer" was really a prepetition-postpetition straddle that was designed to be paid postpetition.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 289-04781-C-11
  7. In Re Frazier (2011)

    The court has been presented with two matters relating to the confirmation of the Debtors' proposed Chapter 13 Plan. The first is a Motion to Value the secured claim held by Real Time Resolutions, Inc. ("Real Time"). The second matter is the Real Time Objection to Confirmation of the Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan. Confirmation of the Debtors' proposed Chapter 13 Plan is dependent upon the determination of value of the Real Time secured claim. Bank of America holds a claim in this case secured by the [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: 09-48595-E-13L
  8. In Re Weston (1989)

    The following relevant and material facts are undisputed by the parties for the purposes of this motion. In February 1983 Joanne M. Weston (hereinafter "Debtor") hired Franklin S. Cibula, a law corporation (hereinafter "Cibula"), as legal counsel to assist her in resolving certain disputes. The Debtor subsequently became suspicious of Cibula's conduct and ultimately terminated his employment sometime in December of 1984. On February 19, 1985 Cibula served Debtor with a complaint ("Complaint") [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 285-00957-B-11
  9. In Re C & P Auto Transport, Inc. (1988)

    The Bankruptcy Code requires the court to approve employment, including terms and conditions, of professionals to represent the estate, and their fees can be paid out of estate funds only upon court order. 11 U.S.C. §§ 327-331. These duties are central to the integrity of the bankruptcy system.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: 288-04614-C-11
  10. In Re Keller (2005)

    Within two months of filing their May 12, 2004 chapter 13 petition the debtors, James and Diana Keller, confirmed a plan requiring them to make 48 monthly payments of $2,175 to the trustee for distribution to their secured and unsecured creditors. Their plan also provides that "[u]nless all allowed unsecured claims are paid in full, the plan shall not terminate earlier than the stated term or 36 months, whichever is longer."


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: 04-91823-A-13G
  11. In Re Godon, Inc. (2002)

    The question is whether vitality remains in the provision for reimbursement of a creditor's expenses and professional fees incurred in recovering property with the court's permission under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(B) and (b)(4). Concluding that the Bankruptcy Code carries forward from the former Bankruptcy Act the authority for creditors to sue in the name of the trustee to recover property for the benefit of the estate without needing to have their counsel employed by the trustee, the court will [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: 01-24209-C-7
  12. In Re Shandrew (1997)

    In this chapter 13 case the debtor seeks confirmation of a plan which treats Household Finance Corporation's (HFC) secured claim as if it were unsecured. HFC holds a claim secured by a deed of trust which encumbers real property which is the debtor's residence.[1] The residence has a value of $85,000 and is also encumbered by a senior deed of trust which secures the $90,000 claim of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 96-94764, Motion Control No. BJD-1
  13. In Re Bestway Products, Inc. (1993)

    The question is whether a discharge may be vacated as a clerical error ten years after it was entered. The short answer is that a discharge can be vacated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) if its entry was a clerical mistake or an error arising from oversight or omission.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy Nos. 283-00029-C-7, 91-23191-C-7, Adv. No. 92-2407
  14. In Re Michelson (1992)

    Among the rocks and shoals of post-confirmation matters is the poorly charted question whether materially defective disclosure used in connection with obtaining confirmation of a plan of reorganization constitutes a fraud that permits revocation of the confirmation order under 11 U.S.C. § 1144.[2] It does. Moreover, involvement by an officer of the court in materially defective disclosure makes the fraud a fraud on the court. Revoking the order of confirmation does not require proof that the [...]

    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 290-00735-C-11, Adv. No. 91-2271
  15. In Re Cohrs (2007)

    The debtor has moved to value the collateral of Americredit, a 2005 Ford F150 pickup truck. If the motion is granted, Americredit's secured claim will be "stripped down" to the value of the truck. Americredit objects to the motion, contending that because it financed the debtor's purchase of the truck, its claim cannot be stripped down.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: 07-21431-A-13G
  16. In Re Bellucci (1990)

    This motion for reconsideration poses two issues: (1) whether a bankruptcy court has inherent power to abstain (or defer to state courts) on grounds distinct from the statutory bankruptcy abstentions that are authorized by 11 U.S.C. § 305 and 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c); and (2) whether a bankruptcy court may lift the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362 sua sponte.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 288-06613-C-11, Adv. No. 289-0133
  17. In Re Hotel Mt. Lassen, Inc. (1997)

    This is a motion to remand five civil actions that were removed from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452. Resolution of the motion requires determination of issues regarding: (1) the post-confirmation effect of a chapter 11 plan of reorganization; (2) subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) remand procedure.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 92-29645-C-11, Adversary Nos. 96-2838, 97-2112, 97-2113, 97-2114, and 97-2115
  18. In Re BES Concrete Products, Inc. (1988)

    The law firm appointed to defend debtor in a lawsuit ("Special Counsel") has applied for interim fees and expenses totaling $55,287.38. Objections were filed by the largest creditor and by the creditors' committee. A hearing was held on July 14, 1988.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 287-05895-C-11, Motion Control No. WGH-1
  19. In Re Barnes (2002)

    Before the court is the motion of the chapter 13 trustee to reconvert the case to chapter 7 (motion control no. JPJ # 1), the objections of the chapter 13 trustee and the former chapter 7 trustee to the exemptions claimed by the debtors (motion control nos. JPJ # 2 and GJH # 1 respectively), and the objections of both trustees to the confirmation of the debtors' proposed chapter 13 plan (motion control nos. JPJ # 3 and GJH # 2).


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: 01-20765-A-13J
  20. In Re Jastrem (1998)

    The debtor filed a chapter 7 petition on April 9, 1998. Michael O'Neal, an attorney doing business as American Law Center ("respondent"), prepared and filed the petition for the debtor. The debtor has not yet received a discharge.


    Court: Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California Docket: Bankruptcy No. 98-91648-A-7

1 of 14 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5