Plaintiff’s first amendment to the complaint, filed prior to any response by defendants, stated it superceded the original complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff then filed a withdrawal of the amendment. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff had withdrawn its only complaint. Motion Denied. Withdrawal of the amendment would have withdrawn the statement that the original complaint was superceded, thus would have restored the original complaint and hence was itself an amendment. Civil Rule 15, made applicable by Fed.R. Bank. P. 7015, required leave of court to withdraw the amendment in the absence of consent of defendants.
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’s motion for order directing Clerk to certify judgment for filing in another district granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, notwithstanding that judgment was appealed, where defendants had no assets in this District but had assets in the New York.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Chapter 13 debtor is not required to obtain court approval to employ an attorney in a child custody dispute but the debtor may not pay the attorney with estate property without court approval, but court granted application to employ.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over debtor who claimed to be beyond the Court’s power as a “sojourner with no ties to the land” and “an Indigenous Peoples (sic) in the lineage of the Olmec Civilization, with heritage upon the land, Muu Lan.”
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Debtor is the sole member of a limited liability company known as Law Group of Georgia by Stadler, LLC. Prior to the bankruptcy, N.C.A. Systems of Illinois, Inc. sued Debtor and the LLC and later obtained a judgment against the LLC. N.C.A. allegedly continued to collect receivables of the LLC after Debtor’s bankruptcy. Zamora, a creditor of Debtor, moved to hold N.C.A. in contempt for violating the automatic stay. Held: Motion denied. Property of LLC is not property of Debtor’s estate, and Zamora lacks standing to enforce the automatic stay.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Alacrity Services, LLC, which was once owned by Debtor, moved to reopen Debtor’s Chapter 11 case to file “pleadings under seal” in connection with an unfiled motion to clarify meaning of prior Consent Order appointing an Estate Representative under 11 U.S.C. Section 1123(b)(3)(B). That Consent Order required Alacrity to give 60 days’ notice to the Estate Representative before Alacrity could sell, transfer or encumber its assets, while the Estate Representative was pursuing an equity holder of Alacrity to recover a fraudulent transfer.
The Court granted the motion to reopen in part but denied the portion seeking to file documents under seal. Alacrity put the cart before the horse in seeking to seal documents before filing the operative motion to seek clarification of the consent order.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
In Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a non-core matter, the Court recommended to the U.S. District Court that it enter a judgment in favor of Defendant declaring that Plaintiff had no interest in technology developed while Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
A debt arising out of a property settlement in a divorce proceeding was not dischargeable because Debtor failed to prove elements of section 523(a)(15).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Debtors may not avoid effect of reaffirmation agreement after deadline for rescinding it has passed by seeking to reopen the case and to amend their statement of intentions.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
For purposes of section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, an obligation to pay rent, taxes or some other expense under an unexpired lease arises at the time that the tenant's liability on that obligation becomes fixed in an amount unalterable by subsequent events, such as the termination of the lease. If section 365(d)(3) does not apply, a landlord is entitled to payment of an administrative expense with respect to stub rent under section 503(b)(l) until rejection of an unexpired lease.