Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BURKART v. SINGH, 2:15-cv-00916-MCE. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150618723 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Harkesh Singh ("Defendant"). In the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ("Recommendation"), the Bankruptcy Court recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 1. 1 The Recommendation recounts the evidence indicating that the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy case, Vincent Singh, was operating a Ponzi scheme fr
More

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Harkesh Singh ("Defendant"). In the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law ("Recommendation"), the Bankruptcy Court recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 1.1

The Recommendation recounts the evidence indicating that the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy case, Vincent Singh, was operating a Ponzi scheme from 2005 or 2006 until August of 2010, and that he paid the Defendant a total of $15,400 during a portion of that time period. The Recommendation explains that Vincent Singh's payments to Defendant are avoidable as fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A) and may be recovered from the Defendant under 11 U.S.C. § 550.

After conducting a de novo review, the Court finds that the Recommendation is based on an accurate summary of the evidence and sound analysis. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The Bankruptcy Court's Recommendation (ECF No. 1) is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Harkesh Singh is GRANTED;

3. Judgement is entered in Plaintiff's favor in the amount of $15,400; and

4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Bankruptcy Court's Recommendation was sent to Defendant on April 29, 2015, and returned to the Court as undeliverable on May 4, 2015. Defendant has not filed a change of address with the Court in either this case or the bankruptcy case. It is Defendant's duty to keep the Court informed of his current address, and service of the Bankruptcy Court's Recommendation at the address on record was effective absent the filing of a notice of change of address. See Local Rule 182(f).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer