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: the Court concludes that Mr. Cook has not provided a basis to be compensated as counsel for the Debtors. His applications for attorneys’ fees are denied. Mr. Cook shall turn over the sum of $25,000 in the Manstone Countertops estate, and the sum of $25,000 to the Robinson estate.

Holding: The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed a motion to convert this chapter 11 case to chapter 7 for cause under §§ 1112 (b)(1), (4)(A), and (4)(B). The Court concludes that the Debtor has shown a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Motion to Convert is denied

Holding: The Trustee has filed an objection to Debtor's exemption of both her and Husband's interest in the Honda on the grounds that Debtor may not claim an exemption on behalf of the non-filing Husband. The Trustee's objection is denied.

Holding: The parties seek a determination on the existence of a deficiency claim. It is the Court’s belief that resolution of “all claims” in the settlement of the Adversary Proceeding encompassed said deficiency claim. This settlement between the Debtor and MidFirst resulted in a final agreed order that required the dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding with prejudice. MidFirst’s attempt to resurrect this claim, without a specific reservation in the final order dismissing the Adversary Proceeding, months after the settlement, and more than a year after the sale of the Properties, is without a legal basis.

Holding: Although the Court has the discretion to grant attorneys’ fees because the claims arose out of contract, the Court denies the Namwest Parties’ applications for attorneys’ fees. The Kohan Parties’ factually complex claims had merit. The $640,000 fees requested would create an extreme hardship that would discourage others who believe they have oral contracts from bringing tenable claims. Furthermore, the fees requested are unreasonable, and the Court cannot determine if they are directly tied to the claims.

Holding: Debtors, without just cause, failed to maintain adequate records to permit creditors to ascertain Debtors' financial condition and the financial condition of a business they controlled. In addition, after their case was filed, Debtors destroyed some of their financial records. Accordingly, Debtors' discharge is denied under§ 727(a)(3).

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.