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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appeals, Chapter 11, Confirmation, Conversion | 06/18/2020 | Victor P. Kearney |
With a confirmed creditor plan of reorganization pending on appeal, Debtor moved to convert his chapter 11 case to chapter 7, asserting an absolute right of conversion. The unsecured creditors’ committee and other interested parties opposed conversion, arguing that the motion was made in bad faith and should be denied; and alternatively arguing that if the motion is granted the case should be immediately reconverted to chapter 11. The Court concludes that two exceptions exist to the purported “absolute right” of conversion—a bad faith exception and a confirmed creditor plan exception. Because the facts of this case demonstrate that both exceptions apply, Debtor’s motion is denied. The Court holds, further, that even assuming that Debtor’s right to convert is truly absolute, immediate reconversion would be appropriate to avoid irreparable harm to the creditors and the estate.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Damages, Nondischargeability, Res Judicata | 06/11/2020 | Greg Chavez v. Elaine Romero |
Plaintiff sought to hold defendant’s debt to plaintiff for damage caused to plaintiff’s rental property nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6), either based on a state court judgment for the plaintiff or based on the Court’s own findings. The Court found that defendant, acting in concert with her boyfriend, willfully and maliciously cut a water line in plaintiff’s property to cause water damage, and the Court grants judgment for the plaintiff. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Avoidance Actions, Summary Judgment | 05/29/2020 | Robert Marcus v. Nathan Segal and Co., Inc. |
Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding whether an avoidance action was barred by the statutes of limitations imposed by 11 U.S.C. §§ 546(a)(2) and 550(f)(2). The Court found the statutes of limitations applicable and found for Defendant because neither the “properly and finally closed” exception nor equitable tolling applied and because the Plaintiff did not try to set aside the final decree under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Contract Interpretation, Relief from Stay | 05/22/2020 | Jackie Don Roberts and Vickie Mae Roberts |
A lessor of farm equipment sought relief from the automatic stay so that he could pick up the leased equipment from the debtors, who had defaulted the lease payments and who had not proposed to assume the lease and cure the defaults. The primary issue before the Court was whether, under the Uniform Commercial Code, the equipment lease was a true lease or a secured transaction disguised as a lease. Concluding that it was a true lease, the Court granted the lessor’s motion for stay relief without prejudice to the debtors’ right to file an immediate motion to assume the lease and cure defaults.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 12, Setoff, Turnover | 05/20/2020 | Jackie Don Roberts and Vickie Mae Roberts |
The United States Department of Agriculture-Farm Service Agency moved for relief from the automatic stay so that it could set off its obligation to make subsidy payments to Debtors with Debtors’ obligations to it under a note and mortgage. Debtors Objected to the Motion and sought an order requiring the movant to turn over the subsidy payments. The Court held that setoff is not permitted because movant’s obligation to Debtors arose postposition while Debtors’ obligation to the movant arose prepetition. Movant is, therefore, prohibited from exercising its setoff rights. Movant’s motion is denied. Debtors’ motion for turnover is granted.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Remand | 05/18/2020 | Edward Lucero v. Richard L. Lucero and Boy Scouts of America |
Application of the permissive abstention factors supported equitable remand of Plaintiff’s claims against non-debtor defendant only to state court. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for remand. Claims against the debtor-defendant were not remanded.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Discovery, Remand | 05/15/2020 | Edward Lucero v. Richard L. Lucero and Boy Scouts of America |
The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for expedited discovery while a motion for remand was pending. Defendant’s age and health condition posed a risk that evidence could be lost if Plaintiff did not obtain deposition and written discovery responses soon. Defendant’s response did not contest the merits of the motion.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary, Summary Judgment | 05/14/2020 | Edward Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Company et al |
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on claim of professional negligence against Defendant, a title agency, is denied. Issues of fact exist regarding whether the title agency neglected its duty of care and, if so, whether the title agency’s conduct proximately caused the claimed damages. Additional briefing is requested on the issue whether the title agency is entitled to summary judgment on the professional negligence claim. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Cause, Chapter 11, Dismissal or Conversion, Laches | 05/13/2020 | Victor P. Kearney |
Debtor’s ex-wife filed a motion to dismiss Debtor’s chapter 11 case for failure to pay his post-petition domestic support obligations, citing 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(P). The Court denied the motion, ruling that movant had not met her burden of showing cause by proving that amounts were due; that even if amounts were due, unusual circumstances prevented dismissal; and that movant was barred by laches. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| 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 |