Judge Martin Barash new supplemental requirements for noticing motions before him.

In June, Judge Barash updated his posted “telephonic” procedures to include ZoomGov instructions and announced that he would be holding all hearings (unless otherwise ordered) using ZoomGov audio and video—at least through the end of the year.  His procedures are here (under “Telephonic Instructions”).

I am advised that he has decided to continue this policy for the foreseeable future.  In furtherance of that decision, he has established supplemental requirements for noticing motions that require a hearing before him.  Those procedures are here (under “Self Calendaring”).

These requirements are intended to ensure that parties get the maximum notice possible that a hearing will be held remotely and get the necessary information to connect to that hearing, either by computer, handheld device or telephone.

The following, which describes the new policy, has been added to Judge Barash’s publicly posted self-calendaring procedures.

Until further notice, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all of Judge Barash’s hearings will be conducted remotely, using ZoomGov audio and video.  Accordingly, in addition to all other applicable noticing requirements, and pursuant to the authority granted under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9007,  Judge Barash requires that a moving party or other party noticing a ZoomGov hearing before him (i) file and serve a completed Supplemental Notice of Hearing to Be Held Remotely Using ZoomGov Audio and Video (“Supplemental Notice”), at the same time the principal notice of such hearing is to be filed and served, or (ii) incorporate conforming language into such principal notice.  The form of Supplemental Notice approved by Judge Barash for a hearing in a bankruptcy case can be found here.  The form of the Supplemental Notice approved by Judge Barash for a hearing in an adversary proceeding can be found here.  The unique ZoomGov connection information for each day’s hearings before Judge Barash—which information is necessary to complete the Supplemental Notice–is posted on his public calendar, which can be located at: http://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/CiaoPosted/default.aspx

Nice post by evidence guru Wayne Silver on whether settlement discussions are really confidential

This is worth reading.  Gives you little shivers about the prospect of hearing your “confidential settlement discussions” being discussed with the judge.

You know Legal and Equitable Rights, but have you heard of a Reversionary Right?

What happens when two spouses file two separate bankruptcy cases?  I will use Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 both to distinguish the spouses but also to establish the order of filing — first and second.  Spouse 1 files first followed by Spouse 2 later.

Do the community assets of Spouse 1 get included in Spouse 2′s bankruptcy case?  Not so says the Court in this published decision but Spouse 2 does have a “Reversionary Right” to those assets.

Here’s what happened in this published Chapter 13 Moreno case from Riverside.

Read more…

Good points from the cdcbaa program “Meet the chapter 7 Trustees.”

These programs are absolutely fascinating!  I can’t comprehend that any attorney doing any appreciable amount of chapter 7 cases is not a member of this group and attending these meetings.  The program consisted of two hours of debtor’s counsel asking questions and each of the trustees responding (although the most common answer by far was “it depends.”

Points that jumped out at me:

1.  The trustees unanimously agreed that doing the 341(a) meeting by Zoom is great and will continue, certainly for now, and for some of them, hopefully forever.  One benefit is that attendance by the debtors has increased since there are fewer excuses for not attending.  More creditors are attending because it’s so easy to attend, trustees like creditors being involved (most of the time). Read more…

June 2020 Central District filings up a little, compared to May.

June bankruptcy filings increased 8.5% over May but were still 24% lower than a year ago.  For five of the last six years before 2020, filings in June were lower than May.

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Jan 2,828 2,745 2,741 2,839 2,872 3,364 4,704
Feb 2,781 2,754 2,708 2,795 3,299 3,829 4,574
March 2,736 3,481 3,363 3,782 3,923 4,496 5,430
April 1,669 3,631 3,277 3,209 3,584 4,486 5,364
May 2,080 3,347 3,226 3,384 3,484 3,971 5,500
June 2,257 2,967 2,981 3,252 3,545 3,966 4,386
July 3,270 3,057 2,953 3,239 3,731 4,701
Aug 3,274 3,337 3,387 3,543 3,544 4,540
Sept 2,934 2,772 3,071 3,168 3,493 4,317
Oct 3,355 3,259 3,170 3,235 3,751 4,554
Nov 2,636 2,821 3,004 3,025 3,531 3,642
Dec 2,723 2,419 2,416 2,902 2,718 3,733
Total 14,351 37,117 35,961 37,262 39,819 44,880 55,445

Total filings for the year by chapter are:

Non-Comm’l Commercial Chapter 7 Chapter 13 Chapter 11
13,071 1,283 11,867 2,330 155
91% 9% 83% 16% 1%

There were 31 chapter 11 cases filed in June.  That is what I’m keeping my eye on.

 

Do Cares Act payments count towards the means test? No.

A post from the consumer bankruptcy listserve.

I seem to recall something somewhere that Cares Act payments would not be considered in the bankruptcy means test, does anyone have a reference?

Response from my friend Mark Marcus:

See 11 USC 101(10A)(B)(ii)(V)

So I thought I would check it out.  It’s actually pretty clear.

Section 101(10A)(B)(ii)(V) says that Current Monthly Income excludes:

(V)Payments made under Federal law relating to the national emergency declared by the President under the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19).

Happy Anniversary to Resnik Hayes Moradi, LLP

Resnik Hayes Moradi LLP just passed its second anniversary in existence, July 1, 2020.  We are hanging in there with the current heath issues in our country.  Most of our attorneys and staff are working from home but we have not missed a beat on the quality services we strive to provide to our clients.  Here’s to your good health and Happy 4th of July.  Our firm resume is here. 

Judgment creditor request for attorney’s fee for bankruptcy court efforts.

I found this in a tentative by the very thoughtful Judge Ernest Robles.  Can judgment creditors get attorneys fees for their efforts in bankruptcy court?  Yes, but they have to do it right.

In re Harris, 2:20-12839

B. The Attorneys’ Fees Motion is Denied

The Attorneys’ Fees Motion is denied without prejudice because the Court lacks jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 on account of the Judgment.

The Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over “all cases under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). “Generally, in the bankruptcy context, the word ‘case’ is a term of art which refers to ‘that which is commenced by the filing of a petition; it is the “whole ball of wax,” the chapter 7, 9, 11, 12 or 13 case.’” Blevins Elec., Inc. v. First Am. Nat’l Bank (In re Blevins Elec., Inc.), 185 B.R. 250, 253 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1995). Read more…

How to pay the new District Court $25 fee

Email from Keith Higgenbotham

Dear Colleagues!

The District Court is currently finalizing its renewal application and plans to post it on its website with a link to a portal so that we can pay online using a credit card.  It plans to send out a Notice to its practitioners and to our Bankruptcy Court Clerk.  Once the Notice is received, our Clerk of the Court will send out its own Notice to all the bankruptcy CM/ECF users with a link to the District Court’s website and portal.  The District Court’s goal is to have the renewal application posted and the portal setup by the end of next week.

So some advice:

  1.   You do not need to send in a check to District Court with the hope that it will be applied correctly.

  2.  PLEASE do not send a check to the Bankruptcy Court since it has nothing to do with this fee.

cdcbaa member

Keith Higginbotham

Recovering attorney’s fees in bankruptcy – great program

This program looks great!

Insolvency Law Committee
Zoom Webinar: Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Bankruptcy Court Litigation
Friday, July 10, 2020, 11 am – 12:15 p.m.

This webinar is co-hosted by the Insolvency Law Committee of the Business Law Section of the California Lawyers Association and Remedies Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association

Register Here

Our Speakers: Honorable Victoria S. Kaufman, United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California; Daniel J. Bussel, Professor, UCLA School of Law and Partner, KTBS Law LLP; Gregory M. Salvato, Partner, Salvato Law Offices. Moderator: Joseph Boufadel, Salvato Law Offices. Read more…