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
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)
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
(ordering granting motion to reconsider order disallowing claim).
(lifting automatic stay to permit creditor to perform setoff).
(Ch 13 and §362(c)(3) good faith filing) on appeal to USDC 1:07-CV-1927-RLV.
(Creditor’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Debtor’s Motion to Reopen granted as Debtor was barred by res judicata from relitigating the dischargeability of the debt it owed to the creditor as the matter had been fully litigated in state court)
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied based on the Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy Rule 9023's standard, and the Court’s previous Summary Judgment Order deeming Plaintiff’s student loan debt nondischargable remains unchanged