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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cause | 12/23/2016 | United Tort Claimants v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC. |
Following phase 2 of the trial on plaintiffs’ negligence claims, the Court determined that Defendant’s breach was the proximate cause and cause in fact of the injuries of most of the Plaintiffs. Defendant’s comparative fault in causing the harm was limited to 16.5%. Factual allegations in the Plaintiffs’ complaint were judicial admissions. The Court also analyzed the borrowed servant doctrine applicable under tort law. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Abstention, Attorneys Fees, Dismissal, Jurisdiction | 12/19/2016 | Wilbert W. Salazar and Stephanie Rae Salazar |
Debtor's former counsel asked the Court to enter a money judgment against debtors for the attorneys fees and costs allowed in a dismissed chapter 13 case. After analyzing the definition of "judgment" in Rules 9001 and 9002 and the relevant case law, the Court determined that a final fee order is a judgment that establishes the debtor's debt to counsel. The Court also determined that regardless of whether it had jurisdiction over post-dismissal collection of allowed fees, it would abstain and leave collection matters to the state court. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Jurisdiction, Standing | 12/12/2016 | Robert Yaquinto, Jr. v. John N. Ehrman |
Defendant moved to dismiss claims in adversary proceeding under FRCP 12(b)(1), arguing that the Plaintiff did not have standing to assert the claims. The Court dismissed the case, concluding that Plaintiff did not have standing, because the plan failed to reserve the claims at issue under 11 U.S.C. 1123(b)(3). |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Contract Interpretation, Costs of Litigation, Disgorge Fees, Professionals, Settlement | 12/07/2016 | Hart Oil & Gas, Inc. |
Former liquidating trustee asked the Court to order her former counsel to return $22,753 to the estate for redistribution. The former trustee argued that the payment was contrary to counsel’s fee agreement. Counsel countered that the agreement was changed through a settlement to allow him to collect the funds. The Court found that the order approving the settlement was ambiguous, and applied tradition canons of contract construction, including the Restatement, to conclude that a proper interpretation required it to grant the former trustee’s motion. cont |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 11, Dismissal or Conversion | 12/05/2016 | Sandia Resorts, Inc. |
The Court converted debtor’s chapter 7 case, finding that conversion, rather than dismissal, was in the best interest of the estate and its creditors. Creditor who had filed a competing reorganization plan made an offer to purchase the estate’s assets which, if accepted, could result in a 20% distribution on non-priority unsecured claims. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Assumption and Rejection, Chapter 11, Trustee | 12/02/2016 | Railyard Brewing Company, LLC. |
Chapter 11 trustee of the Railyard Company sought to reject a lease between his estate and Railyard Brewing, a company owned by Debtor’s principals. The lease was drafted by a principal while he controlled both companies, and it contained unusual terms that favored the lessee and burdened the lessor-estate. The Court concluded that the trustee’s decision to reject the lease was within his sound business judgment. However, because Railyard Brewing was potentially an appropriate tenant for the space, the Court directed the parties to attempt to negotiate a new, commercially reasonable lease through mediation. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Automatic Stay, Standing | 11/30/2016 | Susan Murphey |
Bank that obtained a judgment of foreclosure, acquired title to the property by special master’s deed, and obtained an order confirming the special master’s sale in state court before the filing of Debtor’s bankruptcy petition had standing as a party in interest to seek relief from the automatic stay. Debtor, who was not the mortgagor, held only a possessory interest in the property as of the petition date. The Court granted relief from the automatic stay to permit the Bank to return to state court to exercise its rights in the property. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Contract Interpretation, Settlement | 11/30/2016 | Fuel 4 Less, LLC. |
Term in agreed order settling adversary proceeding which provided for payment of remaining settlement proceeds to “general unsecured creditors” was ambiguous and had to be construed against the drafter consistent with the priority distribution scheme contained in the Bankruptcy Code. The Code and Rules recognize priority unsecured claims and non-priority unsecured claims, but not general unsecured claims. To be enforceable against all parties in interest with notice, a provision contrary to the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code must use explicit, clear language. The Court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to enforce the agreed order. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Contract Interpretation, Dischargeability, Jurisdiction, Nondischargeability | 11/23/2016 | Monge v. Jayme et al |
Defendants asked the Court to dismiss the adversary proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs asserted claims under sections 523 and 727. The Court concluded standing, and therefore jurisdiction, was proper because Plaintiffs were listed as creditors. The Court declined to dismiss based on preclusion principles because Plaintiffs did not include documents from the previous proceeding with their motion. The Court also overruled Plaintiffs' argument that the complaint was time-barred, as it was filed within the extended deadline under section 523(c). With respect to the sufficiency of the complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to state their claims with more clarity. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Abstention, Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Contract Interpretation, Due Process, Jurisdiction | 11/23/2016 | Harpole Construction Inc. v. Medallion Midstream, LLC |
Defendant asked the Court to dismiss the adversary proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, to abstain, or to transfer venue. Defendant argued that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1409(d), venue should be transferred to Texas because it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico. The Court concluded that Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within New Mexico, as it solicited Plaintiff to bid on projects and entered into a construction contract with Plaintiff that included provisions invoking New Mexico law. The Court also declined to enforce a forum selection clause requiring the case to be tried in Dallas, Texas because the proceeding was core and the public interest in centralizing bankruptcy proceedings outweighed the interests in enforcing a forum selection clause. Finally, the Court declined to abstain under discretionary abstention provisions. |
Judge David T. Thuma |