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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| Due Process, Reconsideration | 06/07/2017 | Judith A. Wagner v. David Lankford et al |
Law of the case doctrine precluded the Lankfords from reopening adversary proceeding for the purpose of vacating the summary judgments entered against them and trying the case on the merits. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Dischargeability, Nondischargeability | 05/12/2017 | Steve Shapiro v. Shaun Christopher Morrow |
Creditor sought a nondischargeable judgment against Debtor/Defendant, his former horse-racing partner, for fraud, embezzlement, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Court determined the creditor did not carry his burden of fraudulent intent, but awarded $372.20 for embezzlement. The Court also determined the fiduciary duties between partners under the Uniform Partnership Act is not enough to demonstrate a breach of fiduciary duty for purposes of section 523(a)(4). |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Dismissal, Jurisdiction, Standing | 05/05/2017 | NM Enterprises, Inc. v. Harrington et al |
Creditor sought to subordinate certain claims of another creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 510(b) Court dismissed adversary proceeding because Plaintiff did not have standing to bring § 510(b) claims. Furthermore, the confirmed chapter 11 plan granted exclusive authority to the Debtor to pursue subordination claims. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Miscellaneous | 05/04/2017 | Sandia Tobacco Manufacturers, Inc. a New Mexico Domestic Profit |
A director and 90% shareholder of corporation called and held an annual and special meeting of shareholders for the purpose of voting to elect new officers and removing current officers or directors. After the shareholder meeting, the board held a meeting to take additional corporate action. The Court held that shareholders validly removed a board member, but did not comply with the statutory requirements to reduce the number of directors. The remaining shareholder actions taken at the annual and special meeting and the actions of the board taken without first replacing the vacant board position were invalid. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 13, Contract Interpretation, Relief from Stay | 04/27/2017 | Matilde Flores Hamilton |
Debtor confirmed a Chapter 13 plan. Thereafter, the creditor moved for stay relief. Debtor argued a statement she inserted in her Chapter 13 plan regarding the “entire loan balance” fixed the amount of the secured claim. The Court applied traditional rules of contract construction and overruled Debtor’s argument. Debtor’s reading contravened other parts of the plan and the creditor’s proof of claim. |
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 | |
| Avoidance Actions, Preference | 04/14/2017 | Garcia v. P2 Properties |
Wages earned and garnished within 90 days prior to the bankruptcy filing were subject to avoidance under 11 U.S.C. 547(e)(3). |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Discharge | 03/22/2017 | United States Trustee v. Scott A. Bushey |
The Court denied the debtor’s discharge under § 727(a)(4) based on the debtor’s false oaths given in connection with the bankruptcy case. Debtor gave knowing and intentional false testimony at a Rule 2004 examination and at subsequent depositions regarding his participation in pre-petition transactions involving the sale of his business. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |