Opinions

 

All court opinions may be accessed at no charge via PACER through the "Written Opinions" link on the Reports page. You must, however, have an account to access the report via CM/ECF or PACER.

 

Access to opinions from 1997 to present, that are PDF searchable, unrestricted & unsealed, are also available through the Government Printing Office using the Advanced Search for Government Publications. There is no login required and publications are available free of charge.


Court Opinions Database

The court's provides free access of some opinions, at the discretion of the judges, for the years 1998 to present. The results shown below are automatically displayed for all years, all judges, and all keywords/topics.

A search may be performed using the Search box above, or filtering by year, judge, and/or keyword/topic. To search for more than one judge and/or keywords/topics simultaneously, hold down the Ctrl key (or Command key) and select each item.

Keywords/Topic Date Title Description Judge
Damages, Dischargeability, Fraud, Nondischargeability     05/11/2023     Taeki Martin v. Ramin Zamani-Zadeh     

Plaintiff brought a nondischargeability action, seeking to declare her state court judgment against debtor/defendant nondischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(2)(A). After a trial on the merits, the court ruled that defendant had defrauded plaintiff and that all damages awarded by the state court arose from the fraud.da

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability     05/03/2023     Alvarado v. Chavez-Medina     

The Court denied defendant’s second motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended non-dischargeability complaint based on willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6). Plaintiffs stated a plausible claim for relief by alleging that defendant willfully decided to travel over 65 miles per hour on the right-hand shoulder and knew that traveling at high speeds while not keeping a proper lookout and driving erratically on the shoulder of a highway was substantially certain to cause injury. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint also sufficiently alleged that Defendant acted wrongfully, without justification or excuse. The Court recognized that Plaintiffs face a high bar to establish that Defendant subjectively knew that his actions were substantially certain to result in injury in order to satisfy the “willfulness” component at trial. 

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Chapter 13, Equitable Remedies, Injunctions     04/13/2023     S-Tek 1, LLC v. Surv-Tek     

Debtor’s principal sought a declaratory judgment determining that a three-year noncompete obligation, which arose upon the Debtor’s default under closing documents executed in connection with the purchase of a business, had expired by its own terms. Seller opposed the motion, asserting that 1) § 108(c) applied to suspend the term of the non-compete obligation; 2) under a savings clause, the Court, in its discretion, could reform the agreement to extend the term of the noncompete obligations; or 3) equitable tolling applies. The Court determined that § 108(c) is inapplicable. The Court also concluded that it lacked authority to reform the non-compete agreement; however, the Court found that equitable tolling may apply, since seller diligently sought to pursue its rights to enforce the noncompete provision while the Debtor, through its principals, continued to operate the business. The automatic stay allowed Debtor to continue business operations in violation of the noncompete agreement while it attempted to confirm a chapter 11 plan, while holding seller at bay from enforcing its rights. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that equitable tolling may apply, provided the seller has resumed competing business operations and depending on other factors. The Court set an evidentiary hearing to take evidence regarding seller’s current and intended business operations before making a final ruling.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Attorneys Fees, Professionals, Property of the Estate     04/12/2023     Automated Recovery Systems of New Mexico, Inc.     

Debtor filed a motion to pay certain funds to special counsel, arguing that they were trust funds and not estate property. A creditor objected. The court ruled that the funds, attorney fees collected from state court judgments entered in favor of the debtor, were held in trust, were not estate property, and could be paid to special counsel.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel, Dischargeability, Issue Preclusion, Nondischargeability     04/10/2023     Pidcock v. McCune     

Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on validity, existence, and amount of debt owed by Debtor-Defendants relating to stock purchases and a loan, as established by a state court judgment, as well as non-dischargeability of the debt on the basis of fraud under § 523(a)(2) and securities violations under § 523(a)(19). The Court granted summary judgment with respect to the validity, existence, and amount of debt because the state court judgment had claim preclusive effect on such matters. However, the Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims. Regarding the fraud dischargeability claim, the state court judgment did not have (ii) claim preclusive effect because that claim is unique to bankruptcy or (ii) issue preclusive effect because the issue was not actually litigated, and the state court’s amended judgment removed the finding of fraud. Regarding the securities violation dischargeability claim, the Court ruled that § 523(a)(19) overrides the traditional “actually litigated” requirement for issue preclusion. The Court then found that the state court judgment was silent on whether it was based on a securities violation and a review of the complaint did not clarify the basis for the judgment. Resolving a split in the case law, the Court found that it has authority under § 523(a)(19) to determine with there is a securities violation but denied summary judgment on the § 523(a)(19) claim because material facts are in genuine dispute.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Attorneys Fees, Chapter 11, Jurisdiction     03/31/2023     Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe     

Chapter 11 debtor moved for entry of a final decree. United States Trustee objected, arguing that the case was not yet fully administered because some final fee applications had not yet been filed or approved. The court granted the motion, ruling that the estate had been fully administered and that any fee application contested matters could be heard post-closing.

Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 11, Confirmation, Dismissal or Conversion, Subchapter V     03/15/2023     S-Tek 1, LLC     

In a subchapter V case, after denial of confirmation of Debtor’s plan of reorganization and while a creditor’s motion to convert or dismiss the bankruptcy case was under advisement, Debtor filed another plan and a motion to establish confirmation procedures. In the alternative, Debtor asked the Court to approve a structured dismissal. First, the Court observed that Debtor had the right to file preconfirmation plan modifications and treated its preconfirmation amended plans as plan modifications. Second, the Court rejected Debtor’s contention that subchapter V imposes no time limit after denial of confirmation to file a new plan. Third, the Court observed that although a subchapter V debtor may need an extension of time under the stricter standard set forth in § 1189(b) to file another plan following denial of confirmation, the Court did not need to decide the issue. Instead, the Court applied the more liberal standard adopted by courts in chapter 12 cases for granting additional time to file another plan following denial of confirmation and ruled that Debtor would not be given time to file another plan. The Court explained that Debtor had a full and fair opportunity to seek confirmation of its plan, the case had been pending for almost two years, the parties had incurred enormous legal fees, and the new plan was basically an attempt to correct evidentiary gaps in the confirmation hearing already held. Fourth, the Court found that “cause” existed to convert or dismiss the chapter 11 case. Fifth, the Court denied Debtor’s request that the Court approve a structured dismissal because it was not feasible. Debtor intended to continue operating the business, but Debtor’s secured creditor could foreclose its lien on any accounts receivable that Debtor generated. The Court found that Debtor could not protect the receivables by granting a purchase money lien. Finally, the Court found that it was in the best interests of creditors and the estate to convert the case to chapter 7 instead of dismissing the case. The Court relied in making that decision on the secured creditor’s agreement to a chapter 7 carve-out.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Chapter 13, Confirmation, Reconsideration     03/10/2023     Jody Lee Beach and Rhonda B. Beach     

Creditor moved for reconsideration of the court’s order confirming a chapter 13 plan. The creditor made eight arguments in support of the reconsideration motion. The court considered and rejected each argument.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Claim Objection, Professionals, Reconsideration     03/03/2023     Las Uvas Valley Dairies     

Liquidating trustee moved the court to reconsider it ruling that former counsel for the debtor in possession could be retained by a creditor asserting a claim against the liquidating trust. The court analyzed each argument in support of the motion to reconsider and rejected each.reco

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability     03/01/2023     Alvarado v. Chavez-Medina     

Plaintiffs filed a non-dischargeability complaint under § 523(a)(6) asserting that Defendant willfully and maliciously injured Plaintiffs by driving on the shoulder of the freeway at a high speed and crashing into Plaintiffs’ vehicle causing serious injuries to Plaintiffs. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Court agreed that Plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to meet the willful and malicious standard, which requires: 1) an intentional act and an intentional harm, or an intentional act undertaken with the subjective belief that the consequences of the act were substantially certain to occur (willful); and 2) an intentional, wrongful act taken without justification or excuse (malicious). Instead of dismissing the complaint, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend under Rule 15.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz

Pages