Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of an order denying Defendants’ motion to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel was denied because Defendants failed to show a change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Further the motion was untimely.
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)
After Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Defendant’s attorney filed an application for attorney’s fees on the ground that Plaintiff’s claim had no merit. The Court denied the application because (1) Defendant, not his attorney, was the real party in interest and should have been the movant, (2) Defendant had not complied with the safe harbor provision of Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c)(1)(A) and (3) the motion had not been properly served on Plaintiff.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar Defendant from introducing evidence on solvency in preference dispute was denied where the pre-trial order showed no issue on solvency, making the motion unnecessary. Defendant’s motion in limine to bar testimony of expert witness because his deposition testimony cast doubt on the extent of his knowledge was denied; such an objection should be made at trial (based on evidence about witness’s qualifications).
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Under Bankruptcy Rules 7004(b)(3) and 9014, Court lacked personal jurisdiction over corporate respondent to motion to redeem, where the motion was mailed to respondent but not to the attention of a named officer or managing agent.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pro se debtor moved to reopen the case to enable her to sue a lender that had foreclosed on her residence. Motion denied. If the claim had been abandoned by the trustee, as debtor alleged, the Court lacked jurisdiction, and if the claim had not been abandoned, only the trustee could sue on it.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff sued Debtors, one of whom had worked for Plaintiff as an account representative, to determine the dischargeability of debt that included debt assigned to Plaintiff by one of its customers. Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel, which had also represented the customer, on the ground that if the amount paid by Plaintiff to the customer for her claims turned out to exceed the amount of any debt owed by Defendants to the customer, Plaintiff might sue the customer to recover the difference. The Court denied the motion because the motion was based on speculation, not an actual conflict, and because Defendants had not timely filed a motion to disqualify, having raised the issue in January 2007 in state court litigation.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
In 74 adversary proceedings, Debtors in possession sued numerous individuals, a few of whom were insiders of Debtors, to recover preferences and fraudulent transfers. The proceedings were consolidated for the purpose of trying the issue of whether Debtors had engaged in a Ponzi scheme. The Court found that the Debtors had promised public investors extraordinary returns but had no business or assets that could fund the promised returns and that they operated a Ponzi scheme.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Motion for leave to amend complaint pursuant to Civil Rule 15(c) to add new defendant denied, where plaintiff made no showing that new defendant had knowledge of the pendency of the adversary proceeding during the 120-day period following its commencement. No presumption of receipt of process arose where the envelopes addressed to an individual who was an officer of the defendant sought to be added were mailed to an address that the existing defendant, the officer and the defendant sought to be added had vacated 9 months prior to the commencement of the proceeding.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was denied because service of process on the individual Defendant at a post office box did not comply with Bankr. Rule 7004(b)(1)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Non-parties to adversary proceeding moved for protective order to quash subpoenas duces tecum and to bar their depositions on the ground that they were not parties, there had been no showing that any information they might have would be relevant and plaintiff had not shown a substantial need for their testimony. Motion denied as without merit to the point of being friviolous.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION