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 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.

Holding: The Court has not received a full enough record of the evidence introduced at trial in Florida to make a determination that the Verdict will have preclusive effect in this Court. Without this information, the Court cannot be confident, as required by Florida’s issue preclusion doctrine, that an identical issue was presented in the prior proceeding. The Court also believes that granting relief from stay will prejudice the bankruptcy estate and place an undue burden on Debtor. The Florida Appeal will diminish the estate by draining resources to defend the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to prosecute Debtor’s cross appeal. Furthermore, prosecuting the Florida Appeal will result in undue delay in administering Debtor's estate.

Holding: Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, together with the arguments and representations of counsel and the entire record before the Court, and good cause appearing, the Court makes findings of fact and conclusions of law on Debtor's Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization

Holding: The Debtor's motion for preliminary injunction will be granted. As a matter of law, all of the Rule 65 elements are satisfied: (1) the Debtor is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the balance of equities tip sharply in the Debtor's favor, due to the parties' own agreement; (3) the Debtor's reorganization prospects are jeopardized if the injunction is not issued, and (4) public policy considerations are not involved in this purely contractual dispute. However, the Bank may pursue collection remedies against its Guarantors to the extent of $623,914.21. A preliminary injunction shall be in force, therefore, until further order of the court or until a final judgment on the merits is entered and docketed.

Holding: If Mr. Turetzky believes that the confirmation order--which is now final--was procured by fraud, he is directed to 11 U.S.C. § 1144, which provides that this is the only way to set aside such an order. The time limit to file such a motion is 180 days from confirmation. § 1144. If the starting place for these disputes is to be 11 U.S.C. § 1144, then a full blown trial on the merits is required, not merely mounds of pleadings which are unsupported by either law, or affidavits sworn to under penalty of perjury.To cut through this bramble bush of unorthodox procedure, the court will quash all subpoenas issued by Mr. Turetzky, vacate the 2004 examination orders, and require all subpoenaed material to be returned--unread and unopened--to the sources from which it came. The court will also not go forward with having hearings on sanctions, contempt or fees.

Holding: After a trail on the alleged non-dischareability of a particular debt, the court found that Defendant, Shane Skinner, made a representation that was so far beyond his financial reality as to be deceptive, and that, when made, he knew that he either could not or would not perform his promise to quickly pay off the underlying lien on the vehicle. Huggins reasonably and justifiably relied on this representation and all five elements under § 523(a)(2)(A)required for a finding of non-dischargeability were met.

Holding: The Court concludes that the Property is property of the estate pursuant to Section 541, Subsections (a)(5) and (a)(1). Therefore, the Court will grant the Trustee’s Motion to Sell the Property free and clear of liens. The Trustee is directed to submit an appropriate form of order incorporating this decision, granting the Motion to Sell the Property free and clear of liens, and overruling the Debtors’ Objection thereto.

Holding: the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied its duty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), incorporated into this Adversary Proceeding as a result of Bankruptcy Rules 7012 and 7009, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and has stated with particularity the allegations surrounding the alleged fraud. The Court has cited to relevant case law that provides a basis for the particular facts alleged to be considered fraud, though still recognizing that certain cases cited by this Court are not binding, but merely provide persuasive authority. Because Plaintiff has met its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), the Court denies the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Holding: The court finds and concludes that Debtor's Plan may be confirmed.

Holding: all of the facts and circumstances demonstrate that the Delgados did not really care about avoiding any possible violation of the automatic stay, but rather sought to use the automatic stay as a sword rather than as a shield, in order to seek a large compensatory and punitive damage award. Based on all of these factors and all of the facts and circumstances, the Court concludes Hacienda is entitled to nunc pro tunc annulment of the automatic stay, effective as of the date of the filing of the case. Indeed, the day the bidding occurred, December 27, was the day the bankruptcy case should have been dismissed, within 7 days of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition pursuant to Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007-1. the Court concludes that the Delgados shall take nothing by their complaint pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 362(k), Hacienda is entitled to retroactive stay relief nunc pro tunc to the date of the petition, and all parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Holding: When evaluating competing confirmation plans, “the court shall consider the preferences of creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(c). Under both Debtor’s and Lender’s Plans, the existing equity holders would be replaced. As a result, only creditors’ preferences need to be considered when choosing between the competing plans. Accordingly, Lender’s Plan should be confirmed because it satisfies all of the required elements of § 1129 and provides for the best interests of creditors. Lender’s proposed 100% payment with interest offers better treatment to all creditors than Debtor’s proposal, which offers extended payment terms and exposes Lender (the largest creditor) to an unacceptable level of risk.