All posts in Courts

Judge Zurzolo appearance instructions

Email from Keith Higginbotham

Dear Colleagues!

Judge Zurzolo has asked that attorneys appearing on his upcoming Ch13 Cf hrgs for MONDAY, September 14th register their appearances AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (now) due to the number of matters on that calendar.  Instructions for registration can be found on the calendar page for the tentatives for 9/14 (pages 1 & 2) and also on Judge Zurzolo’s webpage under “Telephonic Instructions”.

As you may be aware, Judge Zurzolo was the first Judge to create a tollfree appearance line so that we do not need to use CourtCall.  As a trade-off, we are REQUIRED to register your appearance(s) with his chambers beforehand using a new specific email address.

The Ch13 calendar for Monday, September 9/14 is now posted.  Instructions for making a telephonic appearance are also posted — including allowing you to register for more than 1 hearing in one email for ALL appearances for that day for that attorney.

The Court is prepared to accept registrations beginning TODAY and strongly encourages it.  The Court asks that attorneys begin registering now (at least for 9:00 and 10:30 hearings), and definitely no later than Wed 9/9.   That will help chambers be prepared and not deluged at the last minute.

As a reminder, Judge Zurzolo’s 9:00 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. hearings are listed on VZ webpage under “Chapter 13”.

The 10:30 a.m. hearings are posted under tentative rulings, and by Tues 9/8 the tentatives will be updated to identify hearings for which appearances are waived.

cdcbaa member

Keith Higginbotham

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.

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

Tentative from Judge Kaufman re exemption for Covid-19 stimulus checks

June 25, 2020  2:00 PM
1:11-11603  Chapter 7
#3.00 Judgment Creditors Motion Assignment Order and Restraining Order

Docket 735
I. BACKGROUND
At the last hearing, the Court requested that Tammy Phillips and Tammy Phillips, a Prof. Law Corp. (“Creditors”), file a supplemental brief regarding whether Kevan Harry Gilman (“Debtor”) waived his right to claim an exemption in any “Covid-19 economic stimulus checks/payments from the federal government to Debtor,”including the stimulus check that Debtor may qualify for under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “Stimulus Check”) .

On May 28, 2020, Creditors filed a supplemental brief (the “Brief”) [doc. 746].  In the Brief, Creditors assert that Debtor waived his right to an exemption by failing to claim one within three days of the hearing on their motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 708.550.  Creditors also argue that Debtor has waived his right to claim an exemption in any future Covid-19 related federal stimulus payments.  Finally, if Debtor is provided with a Stimulus Check, Creditors expressed opposition to the Court’s proposed procedure for Creditors to receive the Stimulus Check. [FN1].  Debtor did not file a response to the Brief. Read more…

Watch out for Ford and reaff’s

This is from our consumer bankruptcy listserve, bankruptcy attys only, names have been withheld to protect the innocent.

Question (from consumer bk atty):  I filed a Chapter 7 for client.  Ford sent their letter saying to sign a reaffirmation agreement or they will repo the car.  Has anyone had Ford actually repo cars with no reaffirmation agreement?

Answer No. 1:  Yes…especially if they’re represented by Cooksey Toolen in Costa Mesa.

Answer No. 2:   Definitely. Watch out for Ford!

Comment from Hale Antico, President of our group:

I think the conventional wisdom is only Ford/Cooksey will go after a failure to reaffirm, but it’s still best practice to reaffirm, coupled with the next sentence. If the court disapproves it, we’re back to pre-BAPCPA ride-through. I know of no example of a repo after a court disapproval where debtor remained current.

Credit Unions won a reaff carve-out at 524(m)(2).

In re Brace oral argument – watch it here

The you tube oral argument at the California Supreme Court was released today.  The link posted by the Supreme Court is here.  

A YouTube video of Ed Hays arguing for the bankruptcy trustee is here.  

Judge’s tentative awards $60,000 in attys fees for failure to admit requested admissions

A tentative today from Judge Saltzman:

The Plaintiffs demonstrate how the Debtor fails to admit several requests for admission that were later proved to be true. Most of the requests that the Debtor failed to admit were not objectionable, the requested admissions were material, the Debtor had no reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the fact of the admission, and there is no other good reason for the Debtor to have failed to admit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2).

The Debtor makes no attempt to challenge any law or authorities for why the Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees. The Debtor argues that he should have prevailed on the motion for summary judgment. The Debtor tries to make technical arguments, twisting the meaning of “personal knowledge” to something utterly absurd. The Debtor’s attempts to justify his frivolous denials and objections to requests for admission are all unpersuasive, and none of those arguments explain why the Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney’s fees for the continued litigation regarding their anti-SLAPP judgment. Read more…

In re Brace – California Supreme Court hears oral argument about what constitutes community property

My previous post on In re Brace is here.

The trustee was represented by Ed Hays, Marshack Hays LLP.  This is his post on social media.

Today, I was fortunate to be able to appear (virtually) and present oral arguments in a case before the California Supreme Court.  It was a very cool experience.  It took me 28 years to get a case before the high court and then Covid-19 kept me from appearing in person.  Hopefully, it won’t take as long to get another chance where I can appear in person.

What was the case about? Read more…

In re Brace to be argued at the California Supreme Court on May 5, 2020

An email from the California Supreme Court:

IN RE CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, JR.
Case: S252473, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2020-04-15
Event Description: Case ordered on calendar

Notes: To be argued on Tuesday, May 5, 2020, at 1:30 pm, in San Francisco. Counsel to appear via video or teleconference per Administrative Orders 2020-03-13 (March 16, 2020) and 2020-03-27 (March 27, 2020).

For more information on this case, go to:
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2269894&doc_no=S252473&request_token=OCIwLSEmXkw7WyBZSCItSENIUEA0UDxTJiI%2BVz1TTDtJCg%3D%3D