(concluding that movant had an obligation upon receiving actual knowledge of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to inquire as to whether a claims bar date had been set and that imposing such an obligation on the movant did not violate due process).
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.
(Granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss)
(DA denied compensation for period after appointment of Ch11T)
(granting debtors' motion to reopen case for purposes of seeking a determination of dischargeability of debt pursuant to section 523(a)(3)).
(order following trial, determining plaintiff failed to prove debtors incurred debt through fraud).
(Approval of incentive-based severance payment to insider)
(Sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)); entered
Honorable Mary Grace Diehl (Recall)
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in a nondischargeability action was granted over Defendant’s objection thereto. Defendant failed to move to set aside the default, and since Defendant failed to answer, the facts in the complaint were deemed admitted, as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). Additionally, the asserted defenses by Defendant had no merit. Defendant sought protection from her personal liability on the subject debt by asserting that only the limited liability company entered into the contract. A corporate officer cannot use the corporate shield to avoid liability for fraud which is committed by such officer. Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff failed to make out the loss requirement for an actual fraud claim was also unsuccessful. Plaintiff’s judgment in a state court suit was sufficient evidence to prove loss.
Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment for a § 523(a)(14) claim because the facts as alleged were insufficient to warrant an award of judgment to Plaintiff. Sufficiently pleading a § 523(a)(14) claim incorporates requirements under §§ 523(a)(1) and 507(a)(8).
Judge Joyce Bihary (Retired)
(Chapter 11 case filed by LLC without counsel dismissed since corporate debtor must be represented by counsel and cannot appear through shareholders, officers or members.)