Opinions

Email Updates - Click here to subscribe for automatic notices when this page is updated.

The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2014 to current, listed by year and judge.

Holding: Based upon the law and the evidence, the court finds and concludes that Plaintiff failed to prove a case of a non-dischargeable act by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendant, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against her. Similarly, as for Ms. Emerick's Proof of Claim, the court finds no reason to find that either Ms. Eckerdt or Ms. Webb owe her any money for breach of contract. 

Holding: On these facts, equitable subrogation is not necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of the contractors and subcontractors. To the contrary, even without equitable subrogation, the contractors will be paid far less than they are justly entitled to receive for their work, and it is entirely just and proper that Mortgages should bear a substantial portion of their loss, for which it is largely responsible in at least an equitable sense. The contractors and subcontractors are therefore entitled to a lien priority dating from October, 2005, and Mortgages Ltd. is entitled only to the priority dating from the recordation of its deed of trust on May 16, 2007. 

Holding: Plaintiff, C&C Equipment, objects to the discharge of Debtor and Defendant Bialowas on the grounds that: (1) the debt to C&C was incurred as a result of Bialowas’s misrepresentations, thus excepting the debt from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A); (2) Bialowas concealed assets, thus preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(2); (3) Bialowas failed to maintain adequate records, thus preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(3); (4) Bialowas made false statements about his assets, thereby preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(4); and (5) that Bialowas did not satisfactorily explain the loss of his assets, thus preventing him from obtaining a discharge under section 727(a)(5). Judgment on all causes of action will be given to the defendant. 

Holding: Dierich’s activities fall short of what they should have been and the Court has found that some of those activities breached his fiduciary duty to RMMC. Indeed, in the many ways, the facts are so egregious that ever recurring questions are -- can’t something be done about this? Isn’t there some remedy for what he did? How can it be right for him to "get a pass?" But the law requires more than bad acts. It insists that those bad acts be the cause of concrete damage to the plaintiff. And, in this case, the proof is just not there on this critical point, except to the extent Dierich was paid during 2009 by RMMC while at the same time acting in his own interests. For these reasons, judgment will be given to the Defendants on all claims other than for salary disgorgement during 2009. 

Holding:  Court denies Bank United's motion for reconsideration.

Holding:  An order will be entered which (1) recognizes the CVH Mexican insolvency proceeding as a “foreign main proceeding,” and the role of Alcazar as its “foreign representative,” to act on behalf of the estate of that insolvent entity; but (2) which allows the Pima County Superior Court to continue to administer and ultimately adjudicate the relative rights of all parties claiming an interest in the fund of money presently held in custodia legis in the pending action. 

Holding: The Court will approve confirmation of the Amended Plan of Reorganization.

Holding: Debtors’ Schedules and Plan undervalue their ownership interest in Old Chicago Deli as a going concern and violate § 1325 by failing to adequately account for all disposable income. As a result, the Court will enter a separate Order on this date requiring that Debtors calculate the going-concern value of their 70% interest in Old Chicago Deli and amend their Schedules and Plan to reflect this calculation along with the $20,000- $25,000 in additional annual income earned from Old Chicago Deli. 

Holding: A secured creditor has moved to “designate,” or disqualify, another secured creditor’s acceptance of the plan of reorganization, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 1126(e),1 alleging that the acceptance was not in good faith. The Court denies the motion as untimely and moot and because there is no evidence the vote was cast out of malice, for any improper purpose, or for any reason other than enlightened self-interest consistent with both the voter’s and the plan proponent’s capacities in the bankruptcy case. 

Holding: It appears that all of the fees generated by FNAC were reasonable, and taken only in efforts to move FNAC's claims forward to obtain payment or to foreclose upon its collateral in the face of a defaulted promissory note. Moreover, all other fees incurred were due to defending against the positions taken by Desert Springs--through two bankruptcies and its (never-pressed) "defenses" to FNAC's adversary proceeding. Desert Springs' arguments against awarding FNAC's fees and costs are not persuasive. Counsel for Desert Springs will be ordered to pay such fees and costs from the sums held in the trust account for said purpose.  

Pages