Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint but did not include a copy of the proposed amendment with the motion or otherwise file the proposed amendment. Motion Denied. It is impossible to determine whether unfiled amendment would be in the interests of justice as required by Civil Rule 15.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
You are here
Opinions
Effective January 1, 2017, Orders in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia designated by the Court as "opinions" will be transmitted to the Government Publishing Office (GPO) and made available to the public at no cost. To view these opinions, click HERE to be transferred to GPO site.
Orders designated as Opinions and issued between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2016 are maintained on this website. Many of these Opinions are not intended for publication and are so designated. Each entry includes the style of the matter, the case number, the date entered on the docket, and a short parenthetical expression of the issue(s) raised. The most recent opinions appear first.
You can narrow your search by judge and/or year below. You can also use the search feature above to search by name, word, or phrase. The single opinions are in PDF text format and may be searched for word, phrase, or date by using “Control F,” the Windows search function available in any Windows application.
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its claim that a debt owed by Defendant/Debtor arose from fraud and was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2). The only evidence that Plaintiff justifiably relied on the alleged false representations of Defendant was supplied by an affidavit of an officer having no apparent personal knowledge of the transaction. Motion Denied. Affiant’s conclusion that bank relied was based on critical facts not in evidence – that the persons who approved the loan knew what the application stated and would have made a different decision had they known that the application was inaccurate. The fact that company policy would have prohibited the loan had the loan application been accurate does not show reliance.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
The Chapter 11 plan description of avoidance actions, including preference claims, as the type or category of causes of action of the estates to be retained and prosecuted by the Creditor Representative is sufficient to expressly reserve them from any possible res judicata effect of the confirmation order and to expressly identify them for postconfirmation prosecution under § 1123(b)(3) by the Creditor Representative. Furthermore, the Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement was not an executory contract; therefore, the fact that assumption and payment may have been made pursuant to it does not provide a defense to the preference actions.
Order granting Trustee's motion for default judgment and denying Debtors' discharges under 727(a)(5) based on Debtors' failure to explain disposition of $41,000 in settlement proceeds received pre-petition.
Denying Debtor's discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(4)
Denying Defendant's request to vacate consent judgment
Granting In Part, Denying In Part Application for Compensation filed by Special Counsel for the Chapter 7 Trustee
order directing defendant to produce certain documents in response to discovery requests
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment of a preferential transfer denied and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment granted based on Defendant's defense of contemporaneous exchange for new value
Granting in part Plaintiff's second motion for default judgment, section 523(a)(2)(A)