You are here
Opinions
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.
Judicial opinions from the District of Arizona, as well as other participating courts from throughout the nation, can also be accessed through the U.S. Government Publishing Office's United States Courts Opinions web page. To view judicial opinions on the GPO’s website, click here.
Date |
Description | Judge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/13/12 |
Huggins v. Skinner (4:12-ap-00955-JMM) 12/13/12 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. |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 12/05/12 |
First American Title Insurance Company, Inc. V. Cunningham Et Al (2:11-ap-00629-SSC) 12/05/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 12/05/12 |
First American Title Insurance Company, Inc. v. Cunningham (2:11-ap-00629-SSC) 12/05/12 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. |
Judge Sarah S. Curley (retired) | |
| 12/03/12 |
Assyrian Babylon, LLC (0:11-bk-34059-JMM) 12/03/12 Holding: The court finds and concludes that Debtor's Plan may be confirmed. |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 12/03/12 |
Assyrian Babylon, Llc (0:11-bk-34059-JMM) 12/03/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 11/29/12 |
Delgado (Delgado v. Hacienda Mini Storage LLC) (0:11-bk-34313-RJH) 11/29/12 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. |
Judge Randolph J. Haines (retired) | |
| 11/29/12 |
Ralph Daniel Delgado And Karen Lynn Delgado (0:11-bk-34313-RJH) 11/29/12 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Sanctions for Stay Violation and Retroactive Stay Relief |
Judge Randolph J. Haines (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Saunders Rudasill Hotel, LLC (4:11-bk-16202-EWH) 11/09/12 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. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Saunders Rudasill Hotel, Llc (4:11-bk-16202-EWH) 11/09/12 Memorandum Decision on Plan Confirmation |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Trails End Lodge, Llc (4:11-bk-16190-EWH) 11/09/12 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. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) |