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, 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 | |
| Jurisdiction, Miscellaneous | 01/28/2015 | DDMD Trucking, Inc. |
Creditors filed motion to transfer venue to Midland, Texas. After taking evidence, the court ruled that venue was proper when filed, per 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1408, and that movants did not carry their burden of proving that venue should be transferred under Sectjuriion 1412. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Cause, Chapter 11, Dismissal or Conversion, Motion to Sell | 01/20/2015 | Angel Fire Water Co., LLC. |
Debtor filed motion to sell certain assets, while the U.S. Trustee and several creditors filed motions to convert the case to Chapter 7. The Court denied the motion to sell and granted the conversion motions. In so doing the Court found that cause existed to convert under Section 1112(b), but ruled that a small business debtor's failure to file or confirm a plan within the deadlines set forth in the Code does not constitute cause. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Compromise, Exemptions | 12/24/2014 | Edward J. Smith and Tonya G. Smith |
Upon discovery of omitted claim, trustee in reopened case settled the claim and sought approval. Debtors amended their schedules to exempt the settlement amount and the trustee objected. The Court approved the settlement and sustained the trustee's objection to the amended exemptions, both because debtors were required to show excusable neglect before being allowed to amend their schedules in a reopened case, which they did not do,, and also because debtors could not use both New Mexico homestead and in lieu of homestead exemptions. |
Judge David T. Thuma |