(dischargeabilty under §523(a)(2)(A): loan nondischargeable because obtained by misrepresentations regarding use of motorhome)
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.
(recusal from proceeding naming presiding judge as defendant)
(Default judgment denied because attorney negligence does not constitute defalcation under §523(a)(4))
(denying creditors request for attorney's fees in connection with filing motion for relief from stay pending submission of additional documents)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
(denying defendant's motion for summary judgment)
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
(Debtor's motion to reopen to adjudicate post-discharge claim regarding her coop in NYC denied)
(Extending time for creditor added by amendment near or after the bar date)
Judge James E. Massey (Retired)
The Court denied a motion for entry of a default judgment. What are the questions a court considers in deciding whether or not to grant a motion for a default judgment? This decision provides those questions and some of the analytic framework for answering them.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
In response to complaint asserting that Plaintiff was exclusive owner of technology developed while he was employed by Defendant, Defendant objected to Defendant’s claim, sought to subordinate it, and demanded injunctive relief against Plaintiff. Defendant moved for summary judgment to which Plaintiff did not respond. Earlier, U.S. District Court followed this Court’s recommendation (see posted order dated 04/25/05) to grant Defendant’s motion as to its ownership rights in the technology. In this order, the Court granted the balance of the motion.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION