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's Web Site Opinions Database

The court's web site 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
Attorneys Fees, Garnishment, Judicial Liens - Avoidance, Stay Violation     05/29/2015     Timothy Seigfried et al v. W. Byron Board     

Plaintiffs sought attorney's fees for Defendant's willful violation of the automatic stay.  Court held that award of attorney's fees should be offset by Defendant's judicial lien on garnished wages that was not avoided.

Judge David T. Thuma
Compromise, Professionals     05/15/2015     Nancy Akbari-Shamirzakdi     

Liquidating Trustee moved to settle all of the estate's claims against the Debtor's former attorney.  Debtor objected arguing the settlement ignored the value of alleged malpractice claims the estate could raise against the attorney.  The court ruled that the proposed settlement was fair, equitable, and in the best interest of creditors.

Judge David T. Thuma
Automatic Stay, Damages, Stay Violation, Summary Judgment     05/11/2015     George P. Velasquez v. Los Alamos National Bank     

Debtor sought emotional distress damages, punitive damages, fees, and costs for willful violation of the automatic stay.   Creditor filed papers in the state court after entry of the stay relief order but before the expiration of the 14-day stay contained in Rule 4001(a)(3).  The court denied debtor's request to conduct additional discovery on summary judgment because debtor failed to demonstrate how the requested discovery would create a fact issue.  The court also found that debtor suffered no damages as a result of the stay violation, which occurred only 5 days before the stay terminated and was immediately remedied.

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
Chapter 11, Confirmation     04/08/2015     Sunnyland Farms, Inc.     

Debtor sought confirmation of its Chapter 11 plan.  Creditors objected, arguing that the plan was not proposed in good faith, was not feasible, and did not get the required votes.  The court ruled that the plan was proposed in good faith and was feasible.  The court also ruled that the debtor obtained the necessary votes because the claims of the objecting creditors had been objected to months before and could not be voted.  Debtors had not sought temporary allowance of their claims for voting purposes.  Setting aside the votes of the disputed claims, the remaining creditors had voted to accept the plan.

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Attorneys Fees, Sanctions     03/31/2015     The Northern New Mexico Orthopaedic Center, P.C., v. Auge et al.     

Plaintiff served detailed requests for production of documents.  Defendants' responses were deficient, and after attempting to obtain adequate responses, plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for reimbursement of expenses.  Defendants eventually responded to the requests for production, completing the production about eight months after the initial response.  The Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement of its expenses incurred in compelling compliance, including reasonable attorney fees.

Judge David T. Thuma
Attorneys Fees, Sanctions     03/10/2015     Virginia McCauley, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Fred L. McCauley, Russel Reed, and Tom McCauley & Sons, Inc. v. William Arthur McCauley and Terri Lynn McCauley     

Plaintiff asked for attorney fees in connection with  filing a motion to strike improper responses in defendant's answer.  Court granted the motion to strike (with leave to amend) but denied the sanctions motion, holding that there were other remedies available in the civil procedure rules, so entering a sanction under Sec. 105(a) was not indicated.

Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 13, Discharge, Good Faith     02/25/2015     Larry C. Montes and Susie L. Montes     

Chapter 13 trustee filed motion to dismiss case because it was filed while a prior chapter 7 case was still pending.  The court reviewed the case law in the area and concluded that there was no per se prohibition against simultaneous cases, since the discharge had been entered in the chapter 7 case and the debts to be treated were different in the two cases.  Motion denied.

Judge David T. Thuma
Trustee, Turnover     02/05/2015     Picacho Hills Utility Company, Inc.     

Chapter 7 trustee in converted chapter 11 case moved the court to transfer funds in the court registry to him.  Two creditors objected, arguing that the funds were safer in the court registry and should not be spent in any event.  The court overruled the objections, after reviewing the trustee's statutory and other duties.

Judge David T. Thuma
Joint Petitions     02/04/2015     Karen T. Chilson     

Court addressed whether an individual debtor could amend her petition 100 days after entry of the order for relief to add her spouse as a joint debtor.  The court concluded that the debtor was not permitted to do so, and that if the spouse needed bankruptcy relief, he would have to file a separate case.joint

Judge David T. Thuma