(denying motion for summary judgment as to creditor's section 523(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(3) claims)
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.
(denying motion to reconsider order denying motion for summary judgment)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
(deadline for motion to revoke discharge under § 727(d)(1); filing, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5001(a); proceeding to revoke a discharge should be adversary proceeding, 7001(4); court may construe pleading as complaint.)
(Motion for default judgment by creditor whose claim arises from a malpractice judgment against Debtor, who was Plaintiff's former attorney. Attorney malpractice does not constitute defalcation within the meaning of §523(a)(4)
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
(Order denying default judgment due to Plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient factual allegations to substantiate section 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(2)(C) claims)
(Judgment for fraud claim rendered by United States District Court in Massachusetts satisfies Plaintiff's section 523(a)(2)(A) claim because of collateral estoppel)
(Plaintiff's renewed motion for default judgment granted after incorporating a more detailed factual basis for establishing a claim of actual fraud under section 523(a)(2)(A))
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
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
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
(15 U.S.C. §§ 1602, 1635; on cross motions for summary judgment, Court found assignment of note and security deed on day of closing does not trigger extended three year rescission period of Truth in Lending Act as long as loan proceeds not disbursed within three day rescission period; assignment does not terminate right of rescission under Truth in Lending Act against original lender as matter of law; if at trial there is proof of a violation of Truth in Lending Act, Court will reach issue of whether a rescission remedy can be fashioned against the sole Defendant sued as Plaintiff did not join current holder of note and security deed)