Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FRANK W. VOLK , Chief Bankruptcy Judge . Pending is the Rogers' Motion to Request a Hearing on the Recent Ruling From This Court Concerning the Contempt of Selene Finance (the "Motion to Request Hearing") [Dckt. 108 in the main case and Dckt. 158 in the adversary proceeding]. No response has been filed by Selene Finance, LP ("Selene"). In the Motion to Request Hearing, the Rogers raise several points. First, the Rogers request the opportunity to subpoena their
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FRANK W. VOLK , Chief Bankruptcy Judge . Pending is the Rogers' Motion to Request a Hearing on the Recent Ruling From This Court Concerning the Contempt of Selene Finance (the "Motion to Request Hearing") [Dckt. 108 in the main case and Dckt. 158 in the adversary proceeding]. No response has been filed by Selene Finance, LP ("Selene"). In the Motion to Request Hearing, the Rogers raise several points. First, the Rogers request the opportunity to subpoena their ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FRANK W. VOLK, Chief Bankruptcy Judge.
Pending is the Rogers' Motion to Request a Hearing on the Recent Ruling From This Court Concerning the Contempt of Selene Finance (the "Motion to Request Hearing") [Dckt. 108 in the main case and Dckt. 158 in the adversary proceeding]. No response has been filed by Selene Finance, LP ("Selene").
In the Motion to Request Hearing, the Rogers raise several points. First, the Rogers request the opportunity to subpoena their prior attorney to testify "as to the gravity of these outrageous actions" taken by Selene. Second, the Rogers assert that Selene "willfully [broke] the terms and conditions of a court ordered mediated settlement agreement," and they ask the Court to not only honor that agreement, but to also impose fines and sanctions on Selene for breaching that contract.
Respecting the first contention, the Rogers have had multiple opportunities before the predecessor judge and the undersigned to either subpoena their prior attorney or to at least state their desire to do so. Their attempt to now raise that issue in a request for reconsideration simply comes too late.1 Respecting the second contention, the Court concluded many months ago that the parties had not reached the settlement agreement urged by the Rogers. See Trans. of Hrg., Rogers v. Selene Finance, 2:14-ap-2068 (Bankr. S.D. W. Va. Jun. 1, 2016). There is likewise no basis for revisiting that matter.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Rogers' Motion to Request a Hearing be, and is hereby, DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned main case and adversary proceeding shall progress to closing in the normal course.
