Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

IN RE WING v. AMIN, 13-17039. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20141104a57 Visitors: 1
Filed: Nov. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MARTIN C. CARLSON, Magistrate Judge. THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: This is a bankruptcy matter filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which upon a recusal was assigned to the Honorable Matthew Brann, United States District Judge, and referred to the undersigned. The specific bankruptcy matter currently before us relates to a complaint objecting to the debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, which was filed by Lloyd Wing, Jr., on November 18, 20
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MARTIN C. CARLSON, Magistrate Judge.

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

This is a bankruptcy matter filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which upon a recusal was assigned to the Honorable Matthew Brann, United States District Judge, and referred to the undersigned. The specific bankruptcy matter currently before us relates to a complaint objecting to the debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727, which was filed by Lloyd Wing, Jr., on November 18, 2013. Because Mr. Wing is related to a judge of the bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a judgment was made that recusal was appropriate and this matter was referred to this Court and then assigned to the undersigned.

In the meanwhile, though, it appears that these bankruptcy proceedings moved forward and may have reached a resolution which may make further action in this case unnecessary. Specifically, we note that the Trustee's Final Report on October 9, 2014, seems to propose to pay all allowed unsecured claims in full, including the allowed claim of the plaintiff in this adversary proceeding, Lloyd Wing, in the amount of $7,000.

In light of these developments, which suggest that this dispute is now moot, IT IS ORDERED that on or before November 17, 2014, the parties shall notify the Court regarding whether this dispute is now moot. If the parties conclude that there remains a live dispute between the parties, the parties shall jointly notify the Court of at least three dates when they would be jointly available to travel to Harrisburg to conduct a preliminary status conference in this case. If we have not heard from the parties by November 17, 2014, we shall assume that no live dispute remains between these parties, and act accordingly.

So ordered.

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