LACBA program on Law v. Siegel (exemptions!)

The Force Awakens: Objections to Exemptions After Law…

Law v. Siegel is widely interpreted to require that objections to exemptions be based on limitations established by applicable state law.

Program Date:
Thursday, February 18, 2016

Program Description:
Law v. Siegel is widely interpreted to require that objections to exemptions be based on limitations established by applicable state law. Our panel will examine whether Law extends to objections (not just surcharges of allowed exemptions), and bases upon which trustees are now objecting in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Speakers:
Hon. Deborah J. Saltzman, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California
Nancy B. Clark, Borowitz & Clark, LLP
John N. Tedford, IV, Danning, Gill, Diamond & Kollitz, LLP

Read more…

February 29, 2016 – Young Insolvency Professionals Mixer

Young Insolvency Professionals Mixer
February 29, 2016
The Wellesbourne
10929 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
6:00 P.M.

Quick Blurb About Section 109(g)

Under 109(g), an individual (or family farmer) may not be a debtor if “(2) the debtor requested and obtained the voluntary dismissal of the case following the filing of a request for relief from the automatic stay provided by section 362 of this title

I tell my clients that if we move to voluntarily dismiss a case after a relief from stay motion is filed, there will be a 180 day bar to refiling. Something in my brain changed the word from “following” to “after.” It turns out that they do not mean the same thing.

Section 109(g) was added to prevent debtors from abusing the system by dismissing their cases right before a hearing on relief from stay could be heard and/or granted; thereby depriving the creditor from obtaining an adverse ruling. It was not designed to bar debtors from filing cases in situations where relief from stay was filed years earlier or if issues with respect to the RFS motion were handled.

The most obvious example is the case where RFS is filed and the Debtor wins. Why would there be a bar? So keep this in mind the next time the UST requests a bar because RFS had been filed!

Courts Required to Consider Continuance of Hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment

Warkentin v. Federated Life Ins. Co., 594 Fed. Appx. 900 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014) has a great lesson for litigators:

“These consolidated appeals concern a dispute over a [an insurance policy].  We vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Federated and remand for proceedings consistent with this disposition.

“The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them here. After realizing he failed to timely oppose Federated’s motion for summary judgment, Warkentin filed an opposition and requested that the district court “continue the [summary judgment] hearing 14 days to allow [Federated] time to reply to [Warkentin's] Opposition.”  This request was filed the night before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. (Emphasis added.)

“Warkentin’s request is most naturally read as a motion to extend the time for filing an opposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).  Under this rule, when a motion to extend time is filed “after the time has expired,” the court may extend the time upon a showing of “good cause” and “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).  ”To determine whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes ‘excusable neglect,’ courts must apply a four-factor equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.”  Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993)).

A district court abuses its discretion by failing to engage in this four-factor test or at least the “equitable analysis” captured by the test. Id . at 1261.”

BBeautiful, LLC Files Chapter 11

U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Central District of California (Los Angeles)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 2:16-bk-10799-ER


Assigned to: Ernest M. Robles
Chapter 11
Voluntary
Asset

Date filed:   01/22/2016
341 meeting:   02/26/2016

 

Debtor
BBeautiful, LLC, a California limited liability company
1361 Mountain View Circle
Azusa, CA 91702
LOS ANGELES-CA
Tax ID / EIN: 20-5922946
dba Chrislie Formulations

represented by Alan G Tippie
333 S Hope St 35th Fl
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-626-2311
Fax : 213-629-4520
Email: atippie@sulmeyerlaw.com

Steven Werth
SulmeyerKupetz
333 S Hope St, 35th Flr
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-617-5210
Fax : 213-629-4520
Email: swerth@sulmeyerlaw.com

U.S. Trustee
United States Trustee (LA)
915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 894-6811
represented by Kelly L Morrison
Office of the US Trustee
915 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213-894-2656
Fax : 213-894-2603 

The James T. King Bankruptcy Inn of Court meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.

Happy New Year!

The James T. King Bankruptcy Inn of Court meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.

 Your host for the evening will be President Wes Avery and Program Moderator Hon. Neil Bason

We will be meeting at the Taix French Restaurant located at:

1911 Sunset Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90026 Read more…

Judge Neiter Announces His Retirement

From Chief Judge Sheri Bluebond:

After 40 years of practicing bankruptcy law and 10 years of being on the bench, the Hon. Richard M. Neiter has decided to retire effective as of 9/1/16.  He should then have more time to enjoy with his wonderful wife, Lois, his five grandsons and their parents. We wish him well.

10th Annual 9th Circuit Review – January 30, 2016

cdcbaa

Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney Association

10th Annual Review of 9th Circuit Decisions on Bankruptcy in 2015

January 30, 2016  Read more…

Ezra Brutkus Gubner LLP Adopts New Name

The new name is Brutkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP.  Their website is here.    The announcement is here.  Good lawyers – good people.

Orange County Bar Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section Program on Ethical Issues

Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section Meeting
January 28, 2016

Ethical Issues in Bankruptcy Debtor Representation

Time: 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM Read more…