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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Default Judgment, Discharge, Due Process, Service | 06/02/2023 | Edwards |
The UST filed an adversary proceeding objecting to debtor’s discharge. Debtor filed a non-responsive response to the complaint and failed to participate further. UST moved for a default judgment. The motion was granted, the court holding that the record made clear that debtor was not entitled to a discharge. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Default Judgment, Discharge | 05/19/2023 | Ilene J. Lashinsky vs. Ricky Rudy Benavidez |
The UST filed an adversary proceeding objecting to debtor’s discharge. Debtor filed a non-responsive response to the complaint and failed to participate further. UST moved for a default judgment. The motion was granted, the court holding that the record made clear that debtor was not entitled to a discharge.ad
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Default Judgment, Proof of Claim, Rooker-Feldman | 06/28/2022 | Jose L. Aguayo Calahorra |
Creditor and Debtor both dealt with an unscrupulous third party from whom Debtor legitimately and in good faith purchased a lot and a mobile home in Dona Ana County. Unbeknownst to Debtor, Creditor believed that the third party’s assignment to him of the third party’s rights under a purchase agreement in which Debtor agreed to buy the lot and mobile home from the third party, conferred ownership of the property to the Creditor. It unequivocally did not. Nevertheless, a Texas state court granted Creditor a default judgment against Debtor for the value of the mortgage Debtor granted to the third party when he bought the property. Based on the default judgment, Creditor filed a secured proof of claim in Debtor’s bankruptcy case. Procedural irregularities and legal nullities abound, but after consideration of all the evidence presented at a final hearing, the Court, confined by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, concludes that Creditor has an unsecured claim based on the Texas default judgment. Additionally, the Creditor is ordered to remedy wrongful actions taken in violation of the automatic stay affecting Debtor’s title to the lot and mobile home. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Default Judgment, Relief from Judgment | 02/18/2022 | Yvette J. Gonzalse v. Timothy Delgado et al |
Defendant’s non-appearance for trial led to entry of a default judgment against him. 364 days after the entry of the default judgment, Defendant filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (5), or (6). Though he demonstrated a meritorious defense to the claims against him, Defendant did not demonstrate eligibility for relief from under the standards imposed by the relevant subparts of Rule 60(b). The motion is denied. adver |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Avoidance Actions, Claim Preclusion, Default Judgment | 12/03/2021 | Philip J. Montoya v. Sheaneh Sattari |
In successive motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), Defendant sought to set aside a default judgment entered against her in favor of the chapter 7 trustee in an avoidance action. Since the first motion was denied without prejudice, the trustee’s argument that the present motion is barred by claim preclusion fails. Finding that Defendant did not show excusable neglect for failing to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, the motion, brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), is denied on the merits. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Claim Preclusion, Default Judgment, Dischargeability, Issue Preclusion | 08/12/2021 | Taeki Martin v. Ramin Zamani-Zadeh |
Plaintiff sought summary judgment on her claim that an Oregon state court default judgment against Debtor is nondischargeable. In support of her motion, plaintiff relied on the principles of claim and issue preclusion. Claim preclusion does not apply to Section 523(a) claims. Although issue preclusion may apply to such claims, the judgment in this case does not satisfy the requisite standards. Plaintiff’s nondischargeability claim is based on fraud, false pretenses, and false representation. The state court judgment was based on Plaintiff’s Oregon state law claim of “financial abuse of a vulnerable person.” The judgment does not demonstrate an identity of issues between this and the former proceeding, nor it show that the issues underlying Plaintiff’s nondischargeability claim were actually litigated and essential to the state court judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Default Judgment, Due Process, Relief from Judgment, Service | 04/30/2021 | Phillip J. Montoya v. Sheaneh Sattari |
Defendant moved to set aside a default judgment entered against her, alleging lack of proper service of process and proper proof of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant was served by mail at her business while it was still operating and that service was satisfactorily proved by certificate under the circumstances. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Damages, Default Judgment, Nondischargeability, Punitive Damages | 11/06/2020 | Gretchen Welch v. David Tracy Giron |
Plaintiff sued Defendant for declaration that damages resulting from Defendant’s clouding of Plaintiff’s title, liquidated in a California state court default judgment, were nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). The Court did not determine the default judgment nondischargeable, but instead found and concluded that Defendant’s actions were willful and malicious, and that actual proved damages and $25,000 in punitive damages were therefore nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Default Judgment, Relief from Judgment, Service | 04/27/2020 | Nicole W. Moss et al v. Desiree Ann Pepin |
Debtor (Defendant in the adversary proceeding) moved to set aside default judgment against her on the ground that service of process was ineffective because her counsel was not served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure governing service of process upon a debtor represented by counsel. Defendant also moved for dismissal of the adversary complaint on the ground that the time within which service of process is required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has long expired. The Court granted the motion to set aside default judgment; and denied the motion to dismiss the complaint—setting a deadline within which Plaintiffs must serve Defendant and her counsel with process. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Attorneys Fees, Default Judgment, Nondischargeability, Res Judicata | 02/28/2020 | Derrick E. Hendricks et al v. John Casey Griffin et al |
Plaintiffs asked this Court to rule that Plaintiffs state court judgment against Debtor-Defendants for breach of lease was nondischargeable as willful and malicious injury. One Defendant failed to appear at trial or otherwise defend and his debt to Plaintiffs is therefore nondischargeable, but Plaintiffs failed to prove that the other Defendant willfully and maliciously injured Plaintiffs’ rental property so her debt is discharged.
|
Judge David T. Thuma |