In re City of Detroit, 13-53846-tjt. (2016)
Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: inbco20161103a11
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THOMASENA BARGE SEEKING MONETARY RELIEF THOMAS J. TUCKER , Bankruptcy Judge . On September 16, 2016, Thomasena Barge filed a motion entitled "Motion Seeking Monetary Relief" (Docket # 11544, the "Motion"). The City of Detroit filed a response on October 7, 2016 (Docket # 11608). The Court has fully considered both the Motion and the response, and concludes that a hearing is not necessary, and that the Motion must be denied. The Motion fails to comply with the Court'
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THOMASENA BARGE SEEKING MONETARY RELIEF THOMAS J. TUCKER , Bankruptcy Judge . On September 16, 2016, Thomasena Barge filed a motion entitled "Motion Seeking Monetary Relief" (Docket # 11544, the "Motion"). The City of Detroit filed a response on October 7, 2016 (Docket # 11608). The Court has fully considered both the Motion and the response, and concludes that a hearing is not necessary, and that the Motion must be denied. The Motion fails to comply with the Court's..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THOMASENA BARGE SEEKING MONETARY RELIEF
THOMAS J. TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge.
On September 16, 2016, Thomasena Barge filed a motion entitled "Motion Seeking Monetary Relief" (Docket # 11544, the "Motion"). The City of Detroit filed a response on October 7, 2016 (Docket # 11608). The Court has fully considered both the Motion and the response, and concludes that a hearing is not necessary, and that the Motion must be denied.
The Motion fails to comply with the Court's Order filed July 21, 2016 (Docket # 11392, the "July 21 Order"), which required that if Ms. Barge filed another motion seeking monetary relief against the City, that such motion "alleg[e] specific facts which Ms. Barge contends show that she is entitled to one or more payments under the City's confirmed plan of adjustment above and beyond the monthly pension payment of $266.40 per month that she receives." The Motion alleges no facts from which the Court could conclude that Ms. Barge is entitled to any relief. For these reasons, and also for the reasons stated by the Court on the record during the July 21, 2016 hearing that led to the entry of the July 21 Order, Ms. Barge's latest Motion will be denied, with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 11544) is denied, with prejudice.
Source: Leagle
