(Court denied defendants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint in an adversary proceeding. The Court denied the Motion on the grounds that the complaint pled sufficient facts, if true, could support the relief that was requested. The Court found that the Complaint filed by the United States Trustee that requested the Court revoke the Defendant’s discharge under section 727(d)(1), met the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.)
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.
(Stern v. Marshall does not require dismissal of Trustee's fraudulent transfer action)
(Decision by district court in action with same operative facts as in this adversary proceeding precludes litigation of the issues in this proceeding)
(Debtor not entitled to stay pending appeal because Debtor is not protected by "Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act," therefore has no likelihood of success on appeal)
(Debtor's application to proceed with appeal in forma pauperis denied because appeal is not taken in good faith);
Honorable Paul W. Bonapfel
(Bankruptcy court abstains pursuant to 28 USC 1334(c)(1) from hearing claims asserted by debtor regarding foreclosure and eviction asserted in adversary proceeding and dismisses complaint. Abstention warranted because chapter 7 debtor did not list claims as assets, all claims asserted are under non-bankruptcy law and have no bearing on administration of chapter 7 estate, there has been extensive prepetition litigation between the parties, and automatic stay has been terminated).
Judge Robert E. Brizendine (Retired)
(Eric E. Harris v. Georgia Dep't of Revenue),(Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in part concluding that because Debtor failed to file certain state income tax returns as due after three years before petition filing date and said tax liability was, therefore, entitled to priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. Section 507(a)(8)(A)(i), the claim was excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(1)(A)).
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
The Court granted in part Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and denied defendant’s request for attorney’s fees. Under FRCP 37, Plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees for bringing a motion to compel because Plaintiff complied with the good faith requirement of the local rules, the motion to compel was necessary for Plaintiff to obtain relief, and the Defendant’s opposition to the motion and to the production of discovery was not substantially justified. Plaintiff was not entitled to the entire amount requested because it did not prevail on all of its arguments, and the amount of the award was within the discretion of the Court. The Defendant was not entitled to attorney’s fees because the Plaintiff’s motion was substantially justified
The Court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to amend the complaint to add a new defendant. The amendment was for permissive joinder of a party under FRCP 20, and the Court had extensive discretion under FRCP 15, in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. The Court denied leave on the basis of undue delay and futility. The amendment was filed after the close of discovery and after the Court ruled on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Trustee could not proceed against the party to be joined under 11 U.S.C. § 549 because that party was not an initial transferee; rather, recovery would only be available under 11 U.S.C. § 550. As a result, resolution of the claim against the party to be joined was not necessary to the resolution of the claims already before the Court. The § 550 claim could be brought at a later time.
Honorable Barbara Ellis-Monro, Chief Judge
The Court Granted the Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment on Complaint to Subordinate Claims because under section 510(b), Defendants' claims for damages for recession and fraud in purchasing Debtor's stock are subject to mandatory subordination.