Individual chapter 7 debtor asked for damages caused by utility company’s alleged violation of the automatic stay. The court found that the company had violated the stay in several respects; had also overcharged debtor for the postpetition deposit; had improperly allocated pre- and postpetition electricity charges; and had demanded payment of the postpetition deposit more quickly than promised. The court awarded actual damages of $381 and punitive damages of $2,000.

Plaintiff filed motion for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Relying on the “collateral order doctrine,” Plaintiff argued that the Court lost jurisdiction over the proceeding pending the district court’s ruling on the interlocutory appeal motion. The Court overruled the argument, holding that the collateral order doctrine did not apply. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s alleged informal motion for a stay pending appeal.

Plaintiffs requested summary judgment on their non-dischargeability claims based in large part on the preclusive effect of a prior state court judgment and related findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment because the numbered paragraphs of facts identified in the motion as not in genuine dispute did not establish that Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The Court ruled that it will not fill in gaps in Plaintiffs’ numbered paragraphs of facts they contend are not in genuine dispute from state court findings, evidence, and other materials submitted in support of the motion.

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their non-dischargeability claim under § 523(a)(2)(A) based on the preclusive effect of a state court judgment. The findings and conclusions of the state court satisfied all non-dischargeability elements even though the claim was based on violations of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act (“NMUPA”), which does not require proof of fraudulent intent or justifiable reliance, elements necessary to sustain a non-dischargeability claim under § 523(a)(2)(A). the state court’s findings were necessary to conform the findings with the evidence. Further, the state court’s final judgment adjudicating plaintiffs’ claims under the NMUPA sufficiently established defendant’s fraudulent conduct under § 523(a)(2)(A). Consequently, the same issues to be decided in the non-dischargeability proceeding were actually litigated and necessarily determined in the state court action. Attorneys’ fees and costs awarded by the state court under the NMUPA and traceable to defendant’s fraudulent conduct were appropriately included in the non-dischargeable judgment. However, plaintiffs could not recover attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the adversary proceeding based on the same NMUPA fee-shifting statute because the adversary proceeding did not adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims under the NMUPA.