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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chapter 13, Dismissal | 09/16/2024 | Richard Jaramillo |
The court determined that debtor was ineligible to be a debtor in bankruptcy pursuant to § 109(g)(1). The debtor’s prior bankruptcy case was pending within 180 days of the current bankruptcy case, and it was dismissed due to debtor’s “willful failure to appear before the court in proper prosecution of the case.” Specifically, the court ruled that debtor’s intentional failure to appear at two hearings—on the motion to dismiss the prior case and debtor’s motion to reconsider the dismissal—constituted willful failure to appear before the court for purposes of § 109(g)(1). On such basis, the court dismissed the current bankruptcy case.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Jurisdiction | 08/30/2024 | HRV Santa Fe, LLC v. Jay Wolf et al |
Defendant removed state court action and filed motion to change venue to the district of Delaware. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The Court held that Defendants had not carried their burden of proving that venue transfer was either in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties, as required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1412.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Summary Judgment | 08/27/2024 | John and Olga Montiel |
The Court denied, without prejudice, debtors’ motion for summary judgment on their motion to avoid judicial lien as impairing their homestead exemption. Creditor raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether debtors had an interest in the property in which debtors claimed a homestead exemption. Debtors’ summary judgment motion exceeded the relief requested in the motion to avoid judicial lien. The opinion also includes guidance on what Rule 56 and LBR 7056-1 require.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Automatic Stay, Punitive Damages, Stay Violation | 08/22/2024 | Jessica Chantele Alcon |
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. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Appeals, Automatic Stay, Relief from Stay | 08/16/2024 | Noah Sapir |
Debtor moved for relief from stay to pursue state court appeal of $6.8 million judgment against him. The Court ruled that the Tenth Circuit’s In re Gindi decision—which requires that a creditor seeking relief from stay to pursue an appeal show that he is “likely to succeed” on appeal—does not apply when it is the debtor who seeks stay relief. The Court determined that futility of the appeal would have been a dispositive factor, but that the Debtor’s appeal is not futile. After considering all relevant factors, the Court granted relief from stay.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Appeals, Jurisdiction | 08/12/2024 | HRV Santa Fe, LLC v. Jay Wolf et al |
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.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Summary Judgment | 08/09/2024 | John Hays v. Michael Albert Guebara |
Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment that his state court judgment entitled him to a judgment of nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(4). The state court judgment included judgment on two conversion claims. The Court denied the motion, holding that conversion is not interchangeable with embezzlement or larceny, the torts mentioned in 523(a)(4) that Plaintiff relies upon.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Dischargeability, Issue Preclusion, Summary Judgment | 07/11/2024 | Rael v. Gonzales |
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.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 11, Contract Interpretation, Standing | 06/21/2024 | Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe |
Post-confirmation, creditor moved to enforce “non-monetary” covenants agreed to by debtor as part of its confirmed chapter 11 plan. Debtor objected, arguing that creditor lacked standing to enforce the covenants. Debtor also argued that it was in full compliance with the covenants. The court ruled that creditor lacked standing to enforce the covenants because the parties’ intent was to give enforcement standing solely to the UCC and two trusts created under the confirmed plan. On the merits, the court ruled that the covenants were ambiguous but resolving the ambiguity demonstrated that debtor was in compliance.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Dischargeability, Issue Preclusion | 06/11/2024 | Brookhouser v. Bostick |
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.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |