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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Nondischargeability, Res Judicata | 01/29/2025 | Strategic Funding Source Inc. v. Michael R. Evans et al |
Debtors moved for partial summary judgment that its Virginia state court default judgment entitled it to nondischargeability under 523(a)(2)(A). The Court denied the motion, ruling that claim preclusion does not apply to nondischargeability actions, that issue preclusion does not apply to default judgments domesticated in New Mexico, and that even if it applied Virginia issue preclusion principles, the default judgment was not “actually litigated” under Virginia law.
|
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 | |
| Abstention, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Chapter 11, Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel | 06/04/2024 | HRV Santa Fe, LLC v. Jay Wolf et al |
Member of the holding company for the Bishops Lodge Resort in Santa Fe brought a derivative action against the resort’s mezzanine lender and others, alleging breach of duty and other wrongs. Defendants removed the proceeding to district court. Plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court or for abstention. The court ruled that the removal was proper; that the court had “arising in” and “related to” jurisdiction over the claims, so remand was not required; that the elements of mandatory abstention were not met; and that there were insufficient grounds for permissive abstention. The background for the dispute was a successful chapter 11 case in Delaware had plaintiff objected to and opposed. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Appeals, Claim Preclusion, Collateral Estoppel, Issue Preclusion, Res Judicata | 06/22/2023 | Salomon Alonso Lopez |
Prepetition, debtor stopped paying his mortgage, lender brought a foreclosure action, and debtor raised a standing defense. Lender obtain a summary judgment of foreclosure. Debtor filed a chapter 13 case, lender filed a proof of claim, and debtor objected to the claim, arguing lack of standing. The court overruled the objection on Rooker-Feldman and preclusion grounds.Prepetition, debtor stopped paying his mortgage, lender brought a foreclosure action, and debtor raised a standing defense. Lender obtain a summary judgment of foreclosure. Debtor filed a chapter 13 case, lender filed a proof of claim, and debtor objected to the claim, arguing lack of standing. The court overruled the objection on Rooker-Feldman and preclusion grounds. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Discovery | 09/14/2018 | Victor P. Kearney |
Debtor filed a motion for an order allowing extensive Rule 2004 discovery directed at a third party business. The court ruled that it would allow a limited amount of the discovery, but would deny the balance of the request as being, inter alia, unduly burdensome, harassing, unnecessary, and improperly motivated. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Discharge, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability, Res Judicata | 06/09/2017 | Monge et al. v. Jayme et al |
Defendants sought to dismiss Plaintiffs’ adversary complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court determined Plaintiffs’ section 523 claims were barred by issue preclusion because the parties already litigated fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. in the Texas bankruptcy court. The Court also determined the complaint stated a claim under section 727(a)(2) and/or (2)(4) but not the other subsections of 727. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Avoidance Actions, Collateral Estoppel, Public Utility, Res Judicata, Statutory Construction | 03/21/2017 | Coll v. Picacho Hills Development Company, Inc. |
Debtor/Defendant sought summary judgment on Trustee/Plaintiff’s complaint seeking the return of certain transfers of estate property. Debtor/Defendant argued that the Public Regulation Commission’s findings and conclusions were not binding on the bankruptcy court. Debtor/Defendant also argued it was not required to comply with section 549 (which pertains to unauthorized, post-petition transfers of estate property) while the case was suspended under section 305. The Court determined it had insufficient evidence to rule on preclusion principles and that section 549 did not apply while the case was suspended. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Damages, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability | 04/14/2016 | H. Steven Murphy et al v. David A. Spencer |
Plaintiffs sought summary judgment that their debt was nondischargeable based on a prepetition state court judgment. The Court previously determined the judgment established liability under Section 523(a)(2)(A) (actual fraud) and 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury). The only remaining issue was whether the entire amount of damages was also nondischargeable. The Court determined that all damages stemmed from defendant's fraud and/or willful and malicious conduct. The Court therefore entered a nondischargeable judgment for the entire amount of damages in the state court judgment. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Damages, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability | 11/19/2015 | H. Steven Murphy v. MKM Investments, LLC et al. |
Plaintiffs sought summary judgment that their debt was nondischargeable, based on two pre-petition state court judgments. The Court declined to give preclusive effect to the first judgment, which appeared to be a default judgment, but allowed the plaintiffs to supplement the record with other evidence. The Court determined that the findings in the second judgment were sufficient to establish defendant committed actual fraud and willfully and maliciously injured plaintiffs' property. Since the second judgment did not include any findings about the amount of damages caused by defendant's conduct, the Court allowed plaintiffs to supplement the record on damages. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Nondischargeability, Summary Judgment | 04/22/2015 | The Northern New Mexico Orthopaedic Center, P.C., v. Auge et al. |
Plaintiff sought summary judgment that its debt was nondischargeable, based on pre-petition state court judgment. The court that the state court findings were sufficient to support summary judgment that defendant embezzled funds from plaintiff, but denied summary judgment on the balance of the claims. |
Judge David T. Thuma |