Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
7,439 results
0.62s
United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Jun 24, 2020
more egregious than what 2 DeNoce is being accused of. 3 For a year and a half, Neff wasted everyone’s time and money through two chapter 13 4 cases for which he did not qualify … DeNoce clearly intended to make Neff 8 pay the maximum in attorney fees and to disrupt his life by keeping the litigation going. 9 He was punishing Neff for the damage that Neff did to him. 10 Although
Cited 0 timesUnknown429 B.R. 112 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 28, 2010
They argue that Gardi has not demonstrated an interest in the JANA Funds sufficient to establish standing to lift the automatic stay. … The potential for abuse is heightened when releases afford blanket immunity. *130 Id.
Cited 21 timesPublishedUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 17, 2020
Therefore, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s actions clearly illustrate a waiver of any dismissal of the claim. … P. 4004 and 4007] are ‘jurisdictional’ or otherwise immune from tolling based on equitable principles.” Id. at 188.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 6, 2025
Based on this, the evidence in support of the alleged claims was clearly available to Movants prior to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss. … Moreover, even if the Movants could prevail in arguing that Section 1109(b) applies in this context, the Movants would still not qualify as “parties in interest.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownLaurion v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Mar 18, 2025
The Debtor immediately sought a preliminary injunction, which the District Court denied because the Debtor “ha[d] not established a sufficient likelihood of success.” … This statement clearly indicates that the response was more than just the Payoff Statement that he alleges violated the discharge injunction.
Cited 0 timesUnknownTavenner, as Chapter 7 Trustee v. ULX Partners, LLC
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 20, 2021
LeClair would contribute its non-legal intellectual property as well as back office and certain other non-legal staff to ULXP, 3 The Motion raises a number of affirmative defenses, including Virginia’s intra-corporate immunity … In considering a motion to dismiss, courts only reach affirmative defenses “in the relatively rare circumstances where . . . all facts necessary to the affirmative defense ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint
Cited 0 timesUnknownBYJU's Alpha, Inc. v. Camshaft Capital Fund, LP
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Apr 3, 2024
Upon further review, it does appear that the Contempt Order includes language that does not clearly convey my intent that Mr. … Riju Ravindran owed fiduciary duties to the Debtor, and his testimony clearly indicates that he breached the duty of care owed to the Debtor.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 25, 2021
Application of the Factors in this case clearly weighs in favor of dismissing the case. … The Debtor is not operating, has de minimis assets (if any) and does not qualify for a bankruptcy discharge. The creditors do not require the protection of the automatic stay.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 2020
The statute excepts the grant of immunity for any “act or omission constituting wilful and wanton or grossly negligent conduct.” 10 DEL. C. § 8133(d). … However, the Court has not been able to find supporting authority suggesting that the phrase has a different meaning in the volunteer immunity statute.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · Sep 30, 2021
Missouri Revised Statute § 404.705 establishes the method to create a durable power of attorney that remains valid and permits an attorney in fact to act notwithstanding a principal’s incapacity under Missouri law. … The Power of Attorney clearly appoints her as Mr. Sugg’s “Agent”. Doc. No. 16-1 at 1, § 1.01.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSneva v. R&G FOOD SERVICES, INC. dba LATITUDE CATERING
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Aug 13, 2019
provisions 22 now prohibited by subsequent regulations, the reasoning of these cases remains sound and 23 persuasive. 24 The evidence in this case clearly … was removed effective 17 August 6, 2016, before the Employment Agreement was executed, which suggests that the 18 Arizona Legislature intended to remove severance pay from the category of compensation that 19 can qualify
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Iowa · Aug 30, 2021
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit noted a majority of courts have concluded attorney fee awards related to child support, visitation or custody issues affecting the welfare of the child qualify … It nevertheless was not definitely and firmly convinced the bankruptcy court’s finding was clearly erroneous because the state court made numerous findings regarding the negative impact the debtor’s behavior had on the
Cited 0 timesUnknownChase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nemko, Inc. (In Re Nemko, Inc.)
209 B.R. 590 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jun 9, 1997
In exchange, United Jersey Bank agreed to lend Nemko an amount equal to 80% of Nemko’s qualified accounts receivable. … Asia is clearly distinguishable. P.T. Bank Cent.
Cited 2 timesPublishedSE Property Holdings, LLC v. Stewart
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 3, 2022
Nevertheless, while not clearly defined, there is some limitation to the temporal proximity element of Section 727(a)(5). … In Straub the court concluded that the alleged loss of assets occurring ten years, seven years, and six years prior to bankruptcy was too remote in time qualify under § 727(a)(5).
Cited 0 timesUnknownPaloian v. LaSalle Bank National Ass'n (In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.)
507 B.R. 558 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 4, 2013
The Marathon Opinion explained, “[o]ur precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. … Should it ultimately be decided that waiver by the parties is a viable answer to the issue of bankruptcy authority, this case would qualify.
Cited 15 timesPublishedUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Mar 4, 2022
In sum, the record in this case clearly demonstrates that the Defendant knew well before the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment—and the close of fact discovery— that evidence of the type offered by Jonathan’s affidavit … ) requires that the information used to support a party’s claims or defenses “be solely for impeachment,” and Jonathan’s testimony, whether at summary judgment or trial, is not purely impeachment evidence, he does not qualify
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Feb 7, 2024
The evidence does not establish that Mr. … But the facts do not establish that Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 1, 2025
the debt; (4) be filed with the bankruptcy court; and (5) be equitable under the circumstances.77 The Fifth Circuit has specifically applied this test to hold that a complaint filed in an adversary proceeding could qualify … as an informal proof of claim.78 In that case, the court found that the first four elements were clearly met and that allowance of the claim was equitable because the debtor had filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying the
Cited 0 timesUnknown522 B.R. 294 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Aug 28, 2014
Meikle testified that he was told that HIPinc had to comply with DCAA standards in order to qualify to compete for defense contracts. … The year 2010 clearly is a typo, both on Ex. 17 and in the agreed facts. The correct year of the letter on Ex. 17 is 2011. . Identified as Holly Herring at trial. .
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jul 18, 2013
Therefore, the court is not moved by the Chapter 7 Trustee’s argument that the Debtor’s 18 || homestead exemption should be denied because, as of the date of her bankruptcy petition, the 19 || Homestead Deed remains “to [be] qualified … P. 4003(c) mandates that “the objecting party has the burden 18 || of proving that the exemptions are not properly claimed.” 19 “In any event, the debtor should clearly describe the object and its value especially
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna