IN RE QUINONES, 12-46834 (2015)
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California
Number: inbco20151016742
Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM REGARDING RECENT NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION WILLIAM J. LAFFERTY, III , Bankruptcy Judge . At a Status Conference held on Tuesday, September 29, the Court set a hearing date of October 19, and a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (doc. 130) and Defendants' Counter-Motion for Order Determining Prevailing Party (doc. 141) and Counter Motion for Sanctions (doc. 142). In connection with the Counter-Motion for Order Determining Prevailing Party,
Summary: MEMORANDUM REGARDING RECENT NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION WILLIAM J. LAFFERTY, III , Bankruptcy Judge . At a Status Conference held on Tuesday, September 29, the Court set a hearing date of October 19, and a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (doc. 130) and Defendants' Counter-Motion for Order Determining Prevailing Party (doc. 141) and Counter Motion for Sanctions (doc. 142). In connection with the Counter-Motion for Order Determining Prevailing Party, ..
More
MEMORANDUM REGARDING RECENT NINTH CIRCUIT DECISION
WILLIAM J. LAFFERTY, III, Bankruptcy Judge.
At a Status Conference held on Tuesday, September 29, the Court set a hearing date of October 19, and a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (doc. 130) and Defendants' Counter-Motion for Order Determining Prevailing Party (doc. 141) and Counter Motion for Sanctions (doc. 142). In connection with the Counter-Motion for Order Determining Prevailing Party, the Court notes that on Thursday, October 1, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case Penrod v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., 2015 WL 53730425, 13-16097 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2015), that determined whether the debtor in that case, who had prevailed in a prior dispute with a secured lender, was entitled to attorneys fees under Section 1717 of the California Civil Code, based on an argument that the prior dispute was an "action on the contract." While not presently deciding the precedential effect of the Penrod decision on the Counter-Motion for Order Determining Prevailing Party, the Court does believe that consideration of this decision would be appropriate in connection with the October 19 hearing, and expects the parties to address the effect of the decision in their further pleadings, and to be prepared to discuss the decision at the October 19 hearing.
Source: Leagle
