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
Adversary, Discovery, Professionals - Conflict of Interest     05/07/2020     Yvette Gonzales v. Health Care Partners Foundation Inc. et al     

Defendants in adversary proceeding moved to delay answering interrogatories pending the court’s determination whether Plaintiff’s counsel (i.e. special counsel for the chapter 7 trustee) has a disqualifying conflict of interest arising from his representation of a creditor in a state court case against Defendant’s pre-bankruptcy managing member.  Defendants also sought a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff’s counsel from using discovery responses in the state court case.   The Court held that no disqualifying conflict of interest is present at this time.  The Court denied, without prejudice, the motion for a protective order based on Defendants’ failure to satisfy the procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).


Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Chapter 11, Statutory Construction, Unfair Discrimination     05/01/2020     Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe v. United States of America Small Business Administration     

Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant to apply for the Paycheck Protection Program, part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and the Court converted the hearing into a trial on the merits, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065. The Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff, finding that Defendant’s actions in disallowing bankruptcy debtors from applying for the program exceeded the statutory authority delegated by Congress, were arbitrary and capricious, and impermissibly discriminated against bankruptcy debtors.


Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 11, Extension of Time, Statutory Construction, Subchapter V     04/30/2020     Twin Pines, LLC.     

After its case had been pending for approximately one year, the Debtor filed an amended petition in which it elected to proceed under subchapter V of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the United States Trustee’s objection to Debtor’s amended petition. The Court held that nothing in the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) precluded Debtor’s election to proceed under subchapter V and exercised its discretion to extend the deadlines set forth in subchapter V.


Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Adversary, Summary Judgment     04/28/2020     Edward Alexander Mazel et al v. Bryan A. Lamey et al     

Plaintiffs in this adversary proceeding against a national title insurer and a local title company brought a successor-liability claim against the entity that purchased the local title company years after the events underlying the lawsuit.  Following the general rule in New Mexico and throughout the country that buyers of business assets are not liable for the seller’s debts, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the purchasing entity. 


Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Default Judgment, Relief from Judgment, Service     04/27/2020     Nicole W. Moss et al v. Desiree Ann Pepin     

Debtor (Defendant in the adversary proceeding) moved to set aside default judgment against her on the ground that service of process was ineffective because her counsel was not served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure governing service of process upon a debtor represented by counsel.  Defendant also moved for dismissal of the adversary complaint on the ground that the time within which service of process is required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has long expired.  The Court granted the motion to set aside default judgment; and denied the motion to dismiss the complaint—setting a deadline within which Plaintiffs must serve Defendant and her counsel with process.  

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Discharge     04/24/2020     Rebecca L. Heizer v. Roy Mitchell Waggoner et al     

Plaintiff sought to deny Debtor-Defendants a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4)(A) for failing to disclose the pre-petition sale of a plot of land by real estate contract on Debtors’ schedules and at their § 341 meetings. The Court ruled in favor of the Debtors and ruled that they could receive their discharge because the Court found there was no fraudulent intent in their oral and written omissions regarding the sale of the plot.


Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Summary Judgment     04/15/2020     Edward Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Company et al     

On cross motions for summary judgment on the issue whether a national title insurer was vicariously liable for the alleged tortious conduct of a local title company, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the national title insurer.  The Court held that the title insurer could not be sued in tort for the local title company’s work as title agent.  The Court held, also, that the local title company was not the title insurer’s agent for the provision of escrow services.   


Judge David T. Thuma
Abandonment, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Assumption and Rejection, Discharge Injunction, Judicial Admissions Doctrine     04/13/2020     Financial Security Credit Union v. Stephen Porter and Tische Lynae Porter     

Plaintiff moved for a summary judgment declaration that Plaintiff’s three loans to one Defendant were cross-collateralized and secured by Defendants’ vehicle, that Defendant did not properly tender a payoff of the loans, that Defendants could not lien strip the loans, and a declaration that Plaintiff was fully secured. Court granted summary judgment as to the cross-collateralization of the loans and the failure of Defendants to tender payoff, but determined that the rem was no longer in the estate or in the Court’s jurisdiction, so it could not provide the Plaintiff further relief.


Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Summary Judgment     04/03/2020     Edward Alexander Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Co. et al     

Chapter 7 trustee, acting on behalf of individual Debtor’s bankruptcy estate and the LLC of which Debtor was formerly the managing member brought several claims against a national title insurance company for damages arising from negligence and other alleged wrongful conduct of a local title insurance company, which acted as a title insurance agent for the national title insurance company.  The Court held that the debtor, in his individual capacity and therefore the trustee in his representative capacity, had no standing to bring the claims which belonged exclusively to the LLC.  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the national title insurance company as to all claims brought by the Trustee on behalf of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.


Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 11, Relief from Judgment, Reconsideration     04/02/2020     Joe Jesse Monge and Rosana Elena Monge     

Chapter 11 individual Debtors moved for reconsideration of a default order granting mortgage creditor relief from the automatic stay to continue foreclosure action. The Court denies Debtors’ motion because Debtors do not state grounds that would justify reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and because Debtors’ conveyance of the property to their son by quitclaim deed means that reinstatement of the automatic stay would not protect the home from foreclosure in any event.



Judge David T. Thuma