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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class Action | 11/10/2015 | Quick Cash Inc. |
Class proofs of claim are permitted in bankruptcy cases. The bankruptcy court may, in its discretion, apply Federal Rule 23 (governing class actions) through Bankruptcy Rule 9014 and Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to the claims allowance process to allow a class representative to file a class proof of claim on behalf of all similarly situated members of the class. The following factors are relevant to the Court’s decision to apply Rule 7023 to allow the filing of a class proof of claim: whether the class has been certified; notice of the bankruptcy claims bar date to class members or putative class members; whether public policy reasons favoring class action suits should be applied to the claims process; the nature of the class action, including whether it is an opt in or opt out class; the timing of the request to file a class proof of claim; whether potential jurisdictional issues impede the filing of a class proof of claim; and the potential impact of the filing of a class proof of claim om the debtor’s reorganization prospects, the potential prejudice to other creditors, and the potential benefit to class members. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Automatic Stay, BAPCPA, Reaffirmation Agreements | 11/02/2015 | Mark and Melanie Williamson |
Debtors filed a statement of intention indicating an intent to retain a manufactured home subject to creditor’s security interest and to continue to pay the debt. Debtors did not seek to reaffirm the debt and did not seek to redeem the property. The Court denied creditor’s motion to 1) compel debtors to comply with their duties under § 521 by entering into a reaffirmation agreement; and 2) to delay the entry of the debtors’ discharge, holding that a creditor’s exclusive remedy with respect to the property based on the debtors’ failure to comply with their duties under § 521(a)(2) and/or § 521(a)(6) is provided in § 362(h)(1) and the hanging paragraph under § 521(a)(6): termination of the automatic stay and removal of the property from the bankruptcy estate. The creditor may proceed to exercise its rights with respect to the property as may be permitted under applicable nonbankruptcy law. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Attorneys Fees, Fees, Sanctions | 10/30/2015 | Robert I. Maese, Sr. et. al v. Rovert Maese, Jr. et. al |
Plaintiffs sought attorney fees in connection with obtaining an order compelling discovery. The Court found that under Rule 37(a)(5), Plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable fees incurring in drafting the motion to compel, attending hearings on the motion to compel, preparing a discovery order, and preparing the attorney fee affidavit. Plaintiffs were not entitled to fees incurred in their good faith attempt to obtain discovery or for reviewing the documents that were produced. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Sanctions | 10/26/2015 | Dennis Pantano v. Michael Manno et.al |
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b), the court imposed on Defendant/Debtor the harshest of sanctions, default judgment denying discharge, based on Defendant/Debtor’s willful and bad faith failure to attend court-ordered deposition after having been warned that failure to appear at the deposition could result in entry of default judgment and after having failed to attend two prior scheduled depositions in violation of court orders without complying with NM-LBR 703-01(b). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 13, Valuation | 10/23/2015 | Robinelle A. Gensler |
Chapter 13 Debtor sought to value manufactured home. The Court used the NADA guide as a starting point, and then increased the value to account for upgrades and decreased the value to account for necessary repairs. The Court also held that the value of a manufactured home does not take into account the costs of removing, relocating, or delivering the home. |
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 | |
| Automatic Stay, Miscellaneous, Relief from Stay | 09/15/2015 | Kachina Village, LLC. |
Secured creditor sought to designate its collateral—an unimproved parcel— as single asset real estate, or “SARE,” as that term is defined in § 101(51B). The only element in dispute was whether the subject property came within the exception for “residential real property with fewer than four residential units.” The Court found that even if the exception applied to unimproved parcels, the subject property was SARE because Debtor’s development plans included more than four residences and a commercial building. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary | 09/14/2015 | United Tort Claimants v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC. |
The Court has broad discretion to control discovery under Rule 26 and applied the test articulated in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 8th Cir. 1988) which limits a party’s ability to depose opposing counsel unless, among other things, “no other means exist to obtain the information.” |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Relief from Judgment, Reconsideration | 09/03/2015 | United Tort Claimants v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC. |
A party may not use a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59 to raise new arguments that could have been raised in response to a motion for summary judgment; arguments raised for the first time in a Rule 59 motion are deemed waived and the court generally will not consider them. Here, the Court found a waiver. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Res Judicata | 09/03/2015 | United Tort Claimants v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC. |
The bankruptcy court has the authority to determine the preclusive effect of its own judgments, but may, under principles of judicial comity and judicial economy, defer to the state court to decide whether the bankruptcy court’s judgment should be given res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. The Court deferred to the state court for several reasons. The parties in the state court action were not parties in the adversary proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court, which raised due process concerns, and the issue was already being litigated in state court. The application of res judicata and collateral estoppel required a determination of whether the parties in the two actions are in privity.colla |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |