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 11, Employment of Professionals, Professionals - Conflict of Interest | 06/08/2017 | Lightning Dock Geothermal HI-01, LLC. |
Debtor sought to employ special counsel under section 327(e) to litigate a claim objection and other pending litigation in a chapter 11 case. The Court determined that special counsel’s representation of Debtor’s corporate grandparent did not create a disqualifying conflict. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Attorneys Fees, Chapter 11, Fees, Professionals | 04/26/2017 | Harpole Construction, Inc. |
Counsel for the UCC sought approval of fee application. Debtor objected on the grounds that counsel’s hourly rate should be reduced from $325 to $280. After considering the factor in Johnson and section 330, and the UCC counsel’s rate in other similar cases, the Court determined there was insufficient evidence to support a higher fee in the instant case. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Administrative Claims, Attorneys Fees, Chapter 11, Employment of Professionals, Professionals - Conflict of Interest | 02/28/2017 | Blue Jet, Inc. |
Debtor sought approval of application to employ Chapter 11 DIP counsel under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a). The Court concluded that Counsel's attempt to obtain an attorney charging lien for general bankruptcy work on Debtor's cash and accounts receivable would create a disqualifying interest under § 327(a). The Court approved Counsel's employment absent the charging lien provision. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Assumption and Rejection, Chapter 11, Trustee | 12/02/2016 | Railyard Brewing Company, LLC. |
Chapter 11 trustee of the Railyard Company sought to reject a lease between his estate and Railyard Brewing, a company owned by Debtor’s principals. The lease was drafted by a principal while he controlled both companies, and it contained unusual terms that favored the lessee and burdened the lessor-estate. The Court concluded that the trustee’s decision to reject the lease was within his sound business judgment. However, because Railyard Brewing was potentially an appropriate tenant for the space, the Court directed the parties to attempt to negotiate a new, commercially reasonable lease through mediation. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Classification of Claims, Miscellaneous | 08/10/2016 | Hungry Horse, LLC |
Debtor sought to remove Creditor from the unsecured creditors' committee, arguing that Creditor's claim was secured by Debtor's payment and performance bonds. The Court concluded that the bonds acted as third party guarantees and did nchaptot give rise to any lien or collateral in favor of Creditor. Creditor was therefore eligible to a member of the committee. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Contract Interpretation | 03/28/2016 | Sunnyland Farms, Inc. |
Creditor asked Court to interpret ambiguous confirmed plan to allow him to receive stock rather than cash. Using applicable contract interpretation principles, the Court interpreted the plan to allow the creditor to receive stock. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Attorneys Fees, Chapter 11, Fees, Professionals | 03/03/2016 | Steven Howard and Judy Pimentel |
UST objected to the final fee application of debtor's counsel, arguing that the fees were not reasonable because there was no way debtor could confirm a plan of reorganization. The Court sustained the objection in part, holding that the debtor had a chance to confirm a plan during much of the case, but that the debtor's second amended plan had no chance of being confirmed. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Employment of Professionals, Professionals, Trustee | 10/02/2015 | Golden Park Estates, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company |
Chapter 11 trustee sought interim payments equal to 75% of the commissions earned during the previous month. The Court found that Chapter 11 trustees are entitled to reasonable compensation under § 330(a)(7), up the statutory cap contained in § 326. The Court also determined interim compensation was appropriate after considering factors such as the amount of work required to administer the estate, the existence of equity or cash flow, hardship to the trustee, whether the estate generates monthly income, and the existence of adequate safeguards in the event of disgorgement. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Proof of Claim | 08/18/2015 | Sunnyland Farms, Inc. |
Debtor objected to creditor's proof of claim. Debtor overcame prima facie evidence of validity and amount of the proof of claim. Creditor failed to carry final burden of persuasion as to full amount claimed but succeeded in carrying burden as to a lesser amount. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Dismissal or Conversion, Trustee | 06/11/2015 | Golden Park Estates, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company |
Major secured creditor moved to dismiss or convert chapter 11 case. U.S. Trustee moved to dismiss the case or appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. The court found that cause existed to convert, dismiss, or appoint a trustee. The court ruled that appointment of a trustee was the preferred course because of other debt that could be paid and because the debtor apparently had substantial equity. |
Judge David T. Thuma |