LA#318741 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V ENABLE LLP 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 310-229-9900 HAMID R. RAFATJOO (CA Bar No. 181564) [email protected]KEITH C. OWENS (CA Bar No. 184841) [email protected]JENNIFER L. NASSIRI (CA Bar No. 209796) [email protected]REBECCA S. REVICH (CA Bar No. 264273) [email protected]VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 Counsel for SltnTrst LLC, the duly appointed Liquidating Trustee for the Fleetwood Liquidating Trust UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE DIVISION In re FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Debtors. Case No. 6-09-bk-14254-MJ Chapter 11 TWENTY-FIRST OMNIBUS OBJECTION SEEKING (1) DISALLOWANCE, REDUCTION AND/OR MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN SEVERANCE CLAIMS (A) SUBJECT TO SEVERANCE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, AND/OR (B) NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DEBTORS’ BOOKS AND RECORDS; AND (2) RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN MISCLASSIFIED SEVERANCE CLAIMS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF JODY TUTHILL IN SUPPORT THEREOF Hearing: Date: November 23, 2011 Time: 1:30 p.m. Location: Courtroom 301 3420 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501-3819 Judge: Honorable Meredith A. Jury Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 30
VENABLE LLP2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100Los Angeles, CA 90067Telephone: (310) 229-9900Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
Counsel for SltnTrst LLC, the duly appointedLiquidating Trustee for the Fleetwood Liquidating Trust
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE DIVISION
In re
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Debtors.
Case No. 6-09-bk-14254-MJ
Chapter 11
TWENTY-FIRST OMNIBUS OBJECTIONSEEKING (1) DISALLOWANCE, REDUCTIONAND/OR MODIFICATION OF CERTAINSEVERANCE CLAIMS (A) SUBJECT TOSEVERANCE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT,AND/OR (B) NOT SUPPORTED BY THEDEBTORS’ BOOKS AND RECORDS; AND (2)RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAINMISCLASSIFIED SEVERANCE CLAIMS;MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OFJODY TUTHILL IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Hearing:Date: November 23, 2011Time: 1:30 p.m.Location: Courtroom 301
3420 Twelfth StreetRiverside, CA 92501-3819
Judge: Honorable Meredith A. Jury
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 30
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
OMNIBUS OBJECTION
SltnTrst LLC, the duly appointed liquidating trustee (the “Liquidating Trustee”) for the
Fleetwood Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”) files this Twenty-First Omnibus Objection Seeking (1)
Disallowance, Modification and/or Reduction of Certain Severance Claims (A) Subject to Severance
Class Action Settlement and/or (B) Not Supported by the Debtors' Books and Records; and (2)
Reclassification of Certain Misclassified Severance Claims (the “Omnibus Objection”), with respect to
the following claimants and their claims: Braun, Philip J., 3504; Coleman, Amy M., 1757; Diaz, David
R., 146; Fenn, Steven L., 296; Ferrer, Eduardo, 2707; Fields, Barry W., 3416; Gaughan, Bryan P.,
3741; Hertzog, Charles L., 1644; Juarez, John, 4107; Lautzenheiser, Scott A., 3576; Merritt, Debbra,
13674; Mestlin, John C., 2946; Orozco, Jose H., 3472; Roye, Travis Bradley, 2680; Schwitzer,
Maureen P., 2900; and Sosa, Edward, 3456 (each a “Claimant,” and collectively, the “Claimants”)
pursuant to the Order Approving Motion for Order Approving (I) Procedures for Objections to Proofs
of Claim and (II) Additional Grounds for Omnibus Claim Objections, which was entered by the
Bankruptcy Court on October 20, 2010 [Docket No. 2593] (the “Claim Objection Protocol Order”).
The Omnibus Objection is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and
Exhibit “1” to the Omnibus Objection, the Declaration of Jody Tuthill attached hereto, the Request for
Judicial Notice being filed concurrently herewith, any and all subsequent pleadings filed by the
Liquidating Trustee relating to the Omnibus Objection, the arguments and representations of counsel,
any oral or documentary evidence presented at or prior to the time of the hearing on the Omnibus
Objection, and the record in these cases.
BASIS FOR RELIEF
The Liquidating Trustee has determined that many claims requesting payment for severance
and other non-severance components of such claims, including, but not limited to, those claims arising
under or relating to the Debtors’ vacation and sick policies (collectively, the “Severance Claims”)
asserted against the above-captioned debtor and its related debtor affiliates (collectively, the
“Debtors”) are either (a) not supported by the Debtors' books and records because, among other
reasons, they have been settled and fully released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement (as defined in
the Omnibus Objection), and/or (b) misclassified as priority claims. By and through the Omnibus
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 30
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
Objection, the Liquidating Trustee objects to the Severance Claims as set forth in detail on Exhibit
“1,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and moves to have each of the
Severance Claims disallowed, reduced, modified and/or reclassified as more particularly set forth on
Exhibit “1.”1 The Liquidating Trustee’s objections are subject to the reservation of rights contained
herein to bring additional objections to such claims on other grounds.
WHEREFORE, the Liquidating Trustee requests that this Court enter an order:
(1) Sustaining the Omnibus Objection and disallowing, reducing, modifying and/or
reclassifying, as applicable, with prejudice, the Severance Claims as set forth on Exhibit “1”;
(2) Providing that for any Severance Claim disallowed, reduced and/or reclassified
pursuant to this Omnibus Objection, the Claimant forever waives such claim against the Trust, the
Liquidating Trustee, and the Debtors and their subsidiaries, including without limitation, Gibraltar
Insurance Co. Ltd.;
(3) Providing that any such ruling on the Omnibus Objection shall have no preclusive
effect on, and is without prejudice to, the Liquidating Trustee’s (a) right to object to or seek
disallowance or reclassification of any Severance Claim on any other grounds as the Liquidating
Trustee may later assert; (b) right to assert any claims, demands for relief requiring an adversary
proceeding consistent with Rules 3007(b) and 7001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the
“FRBP”), counterclaims, rights of offset or recoupment, preference actions, fraudulent-transfer
actions, or any other bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy claims and causes of action against the Claimants;
and (c) right to withdraw without prejudice the Omnibus Objection as it applies to any Severance
Claim that is subject to the Omnibus Objection prior to the hearing thereon and, in case of any such
withdrawal, to assert the same (or other) objections to such claim in a later objection (or later
objections) to such claim;
(4) Providing that if any Claimant files or asserts an amendment of any other proof of
claim related to the Severance Claim, then such amendment shall be deemed disallowed with
1 Pursuant to the Claim Objection Protocol Order, the Liquidating Trustee will file with the Court, not later thanseven days prior to the initial hearing, one copy of the first page of each proof of claim that is subject to the OmnibusObjection. Claimants whose proofs of claim are the subject of the Omnibus Objection can download electronic copies oftheir proofs of claim at www.omnimgt.com/sblite/fleetwoodenterprises.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 30
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
prejudice without further order of this Court;
(5) Providing that, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made
applicable in contested matters through FRBP 7054 and 9014, any such ruling on the Omnibus
Objection shall be treated as a final judgment with respect to each Claimant and Severance Claim
subject to such ruling, and determining that there is no just reason for delay in entry of a final
judgment on the Severance Claims resolved by this Omnibus Objection;
(6) Directing and authorizing Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC to modify its claims
database consistent with the terms of the Order granting this Omnibus Objection; and
(7) Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: October 21, 2011 VENABLE LLP
By: /s/ Keith C. OwensKeith C. Owens
Counsel for SltnTrst LLC, the duly appointedLiquidating Trustee for the Fleetwood Liquidating Trust
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 30
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334.
2. Venue of these cases and the Twenty-First Omnibus Objection Seeking (1)
Disallowance Or Reduction of Certain Severance Claims (A) Subject to Severance Class Action
Settlement and/or (B) Not Supported by the Debtors' Books and Records; and (2) Reclassification of
Certain Misclassified Severance Claims (the “Omnibus Objection”) in this district is proper pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.
3. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein are sections 502 and 507 of title 11
of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).
II. BACKGROUND
4. On March 10, 2009 (the “Petition Date”) and subsequent dates thereafter, the above-
captioned debtor and its related debtor affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions
for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Central District of California. The Debtors in these cases include forty-five separate affiliated entities.
5. On May 11, 2009, and subsequent dates thereafter, the Debtors filed their respective
Schedules of Assets and Liabilities [Docket Nos. 499-543, 857-865] (the “Schedules”). The
Schedules, which were based on the Debtors’ books and records as of the Petition Date, list thousands
of claims against the Debtors.
6. On August 6, 2010, the Court entered an order confirming the Fourth Amended Joint
Plan of Liquidation of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors and the Official
Committee of Creditors Holding Unsecured Claims (together with any and all amendments thereto, all
Exhibits and schedules thereto and all documents incorporated by reference therein (as the same may
be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time in accordance with the terms and provisions
thereof)) [Docket No. 2436] (the “Plan”). The Plan became effective on August 23, 2010.
7. In addition, pursuant to the Plan, SltnTrst LLC, the duly appointed liquidating trustee
(the “Liquidating Trustee”) for the Fleetwood Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”) succeeded to all of the
rights and powers of a debtor-in-possession under sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code,
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 5 of 30
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
and is now entrusted to administer the Trust, and its assets, and make distributions from the proceeds
of the Trust in accordance with the Plan. The Liquidating Trustee is authorized, empowered and
directed to take all actions necessary to comply with the Plan and exercise and fulfill the duties and
obligations thereunder, including, but not limited to, objecting to the allowance of claims pursuant to
the terms of the Plan.
8. A total of approximately 18,450 proofs of claim have been filed against the Debtors.
The Liquidating Trustee is in the process of reviewing these claims and has determined that many of
the claims are objectionable, including the Severance Claims (as defined below) subject to this
Omnibus Objection. See Declaration of Jody Tuthill (the “Tuthill Declaration”) attached hereto, at
¶ 7.
A. The Severance Class Action
9. Prior to March 9, 2009, the Debtors maintained a severance policy for certain, full-
time, salaried employees not compensated on an hourly basis (the “Severance Policy”). A copy of the
Severance Policy is attached to the Tuthill Declaration at Exhibit “A.” The Severance Policy was
cancelled on March 9, 2009. Id. at ¶ 8.
10. Since March 9, 2009, the Debtors have terminated approximately 860 full-time,
salaried employees who were not compensated on an hourly basis. Id. at ¶ 9.
11. On August 28, 2009, Plaintiff Curtis Jay Howe, a former employee of Fleetwood
Travel Trailers of Texas, Inc., filed a class action (the “Severance Class Action”) against Fleetwood
Enterprises, Inc. (“FEI”) alleging claims for breach of contract and violation of ERISA on the grounds
that FEI had an obligation to pay severance to terminated employees, but failed to do so. See Request
for Judicial Notice (the “RJN”) at ¶ 1.
12. After significant negotiations, the members of the Severance Class Action (the
“Severance Settlement Class Members”) entered into that certain Compromise and Settlement
Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”)2 that was approved by this Court on August 13, 2010
pursuant to the Order Approving Class Action Settlement [Docket No. 2457] (the “Severance Order”).
2 The Settlement Agreement only applies to those Severance Settlement Class Members who did not opt out of theSeverance Class Action. RJN at ¶ 2; Settlement Agreement at 7: ¶ 3.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 6 of 30
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
See RJN at ¶¶ 2-3. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Severance
Settlement Class Members “have agreed to fully and finally compromise, settle, and resolve any and
all demands, claims, damages, and causes of action, present and future, which . . . were asserted or
could have been asserted in the Severance [Class] Action, including, but not limited to, any other
claims against the Debtors for severance pay or benefits based on or arising out of any federal, state or
local statutes, ordinance, or regulation” (the “Release”). See RJN at ¶ 2; Settlement Agreement at
5:¶ 13. However, the Release specifically excluded the claims of the Severance Settlement Class
Members, if any, for vacation, sick leave, paid time off or reimbursable business expenses that had not
yet been paid (the “Non-Included Claims”). See id.
B. The Debtors’ Sick Policy
13. The Debtors had a sick policy that granted 40 hours of sick time per year to employees
working at its corporate headquarters, beginning on January 1 of each year. Prior to December 2007,
eligible employees were permitted to roll unused sick time hours over to the following year and,
therefore, accumulate more than 40 hours. That policy changed after December 2007, at which time
accumulated sick time was “banked.” Sick time granted after January 1, 2008, can only be used in the
calendar year for which it is granted. Under the Debtors’ sick policy, employees are permitted to use
“banked” sick time after they use all current sick time. Significantly, employees may only use sick
time, and are not entitled to any payment for unused sick time. Id. at ¶ 15.
14. As set forth herein, the Liquidating Trustee requests that the Court disallow, reduce,
modify, and/or reclassify the Severance Claims (as defined below) described on Exhibit “1.”
III. LEGAL STANDARD
15. Bankruptcy Code section 502 authorizes a “party in interest,” such as the Liquidating
Trustee, to object to claims. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). Once the objector raises “facts tending to defeat the
claim by probative force equal to that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves,” then the
burden reverts to the claimant to prove the validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
Wright v. Holm (In re Holm), 931 F.2d 620, 623 (9th Cir. 1991); Ashford v. Consol. Pioneer
Mortgage (In re Consol. Pioneer Mortgage), 178 B.R. 222, 226 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995), aff'd sub nom,
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 7 of 30
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
Ashford v. Naimco, Inc. (In re Consol. Pioneer Mortgage Entities), No. 95-55491, 1996 WL 393533
(9th Cir. July 15, 1996). Indeed, “the ultimate burden of persuasion is always on the claimant.”
Holm, 931 F.2d at 623. In considering an objection to a claim, a bankruptcy court may take judicial
notice of the underlying records in the bankruptcy case, including the debtor’s schedules. See
O'Rourke v. Seaboard Sur. Co. (In re E.R. Fegert, Inc.), 887 F.2d 955, 957-58 (9th Cir. 1989).
16. Once an objection to a claim is made, the Court, after notice and a hearing, must
determine the proper claim amount, if any, of the claim at issue. See 11 U.S.C. § 502(b).
IV. ARGUMENT
As more particularly described in the Tuthill Declaration attached hereto, each of the claims
subject to this Omnibus Objection requesting payment for severance and other non-severance
components of such claims, including those claims arising under or relating to the Debtors’ vacation or
sick policies (collectively, the “Severance Claims”) has been reviewed and compared against the
Debtors’ books and records and the Schedules. Based upon this review, among other determinations
that may be the subject of subsequent objections, the Liquidating Trustee has determined that the
Severance Claims should be disallowed, reduced, modified and/or reclassified as more particularly set
forth on Exhibit “1.”3 The Liquidating Trustee's determination regarding the Severance Claims are
based on the legal grounds discussed below, the attached Tuthill Declaration, and on such other
evidence submitted by the Liquidating Trustee in support of the Omnibus Objection, including, but not
limited to, the RJN.4
A. The Severance Claims Subject to the Severance Class Action Settlement Must BeDisallowed
The Liquidating Trustee has determined that the Severance Claims identified on Exhibit “1”
pertain to “severance pay” that is purportedly owed by the Debtors to each of the claimants subject to
this Omnibus Objection (the “Claimants”). The following Severance Claims were filed by Severance
Settlement Class Members (the “Settled Claims”):
DIAZ, DAVID R., 146; FENN, STEVEN L., 296;
3 The claims subject to the Omnibus Objection can be accessed via www.omnimgt.com/sblite/fleetwoodenterprises.4 Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC was the claims administrator and continues to maintain the claims register in thesecases.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 8 of 30
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
HERTZOG, CHARLES L., 1644; and OROZCO, JOSE H., 3472.
Accordingly, the holders of the Settled Claims as more particularly described on Exhibit “1”
are Severance Settlement Class Members who are bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement
and the Severance Order. As such, these Claimants released all claims5 that were asserted or could
have been asserted against the Debtors in the Severance Class Action, including the Settled Claims.
The Settled Claims more particularly set forth on Exhibit “1” are therefore not entitled to additional
compensation from the Debtors. Accordingly, each Settled Claim should be disallowed in its
entirety.6
B. The Severance Claims Are Not Supported by the Debtors’ Books and Records
1. The Non-Severance Settlement Class Members’ Severance Claims
In addition, the Liquidating Trustee has determined that certain of the Severance Claims, filed
by Claimants other than the Severance Settlement Class Members, are not supported by the Debtors'
books and records. Among other things, Exhibit “1” attached hereto sets forth the Severance Claims
to which the Liquidating Trustee objects, and a brief explanation why each such Severance Claim is
not supported by the Debtors’ books and records. The following Claimants that fall within this
category are identified below:
BRAUN, PHILIP J., 3504; COLEMAN, AMY M., 1757; FERRER, EDUARDO, 2707; FIELDS, BARRY W., 3416; GAUGHAN, BRYAN P., 3741; JUAREZ, JOHN, 4107; LAUTZENHEISER, SCOTT A., 3576; MERRITT, DEBBRA, 13674; MESTLIN, JOHN C., 2946; ROYE, TRAVIS BRADLEY, 2680; SCHWITZER, MAUREEN P., 2900; and SOSA, EDWARD, 3456.
5 The Settlement Agreement specifically excludes the Non-Included Claims.
6 Each of the Settled Claims has already been deemed disallowed and/or withdrawn pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.However, out of an abundance of caution, the Liquidating Trustee seeks a separate order from this Court confirming thedisallowance of the Settled Claims.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 9 of 30
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
After a thorough review of the Debtors' books and records, as described more fully in the
Tuthill Declaration, each of the Severance Claims appears to have resulted from one of the following
scenarios: (1) the Severance Claim was filed by an employee who is not eligible for severance pay
pursuant to the Severance Policy, or (2) the severance amount asserted was miscalculated by the
Claimant. As the holders of these Severance Claims are not entitled to the severance amounts asserted
therein, such Severance Claims must be reduced, modified, or disallowed in their entirety.
2. The Non-Severance Components of the Severance Claims
Based on a thorough review of the Debtors’ books and records, certain of the Severance
Claims include non-severance components that appear to arise under or relate to the Debtors’ vacation
and sick policies. The following Claimants assert Severance Claims that fall within this category:
DIAZ, DAVID R., 146; FENN, STEVEN L., 296; HERTZOG, CHARLES L., 1644; JUAREZ, JOHN, 4107; and OROZCO, JOSE H., 3472.
Each of the claims falling within this category appears to have resulted from one of the
following scenarios: (1) the amount asserted includes vacation pay that was calculated incorrectly,
and/or (2) the amount asserted includes unused sick days that are not eligible for payout upon
termination. See Tuthill Declaration at ¶ 16. Therefore, the Severance Claims falling within this
category should be reduced or disallowed in their entirety as set forth on Exhibit “1.”
C. Certain of the Severance Claims Must Be Reclassified as General Unsecured Claims
Additionally, a portion of one of the Severance Claims filed by Jose H. Orozco, claim no 3472,
has been misclassified as a priority claim under section 507(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code (the
“Misclassified Claim”).
Pursuant to section 507(a)(4), compensation earned within 180 days of the Petition Date is
afforded priority treatment up to the amount of $10,950 (the “Priority Cap”). 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4).7
As the Misclassified Claim includes compensation that was not earned within the 180 days preceding
the Petition Date, the Misclassified Claim must be reclassified as a general unsecured claim in the
amount set forth on Exhibit “1.”
7 Although the current priority cap is $11,725, the priority cap for the purposes of this Omnibus Objection was calculatedat the priority cap in effect as of the Petition Date.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 10 of 30
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
D. Reservation of Rights
In addition to the foregoing, the Liquidating Trustee reserves its right to object to any of the
Severance Claims set forth on Exhibit “1” on any other grounds whatsoever.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Liquidating Trustee requests that this Court enter an order:
(1) Sustaining the Omnibus Objection and disallowing, reducing, modifying and/or
reclassifying, as applicable, with prejudice, the Severance Claims as set forth on Exhibit “1”;
(2) Providing that for any Severance Claim disallowed, reduced, modified and/or
reclassified pursuant to this Omnibus Objection, the Claimant forever waives such claim against the
Trust, the Liquidating Trustee, and the Debtors and their subsidiaries, including without limitation,
Gibraltar Insurance Co. Ltd.;
(3) Providing that any such ruling on the Omnibus Objection shall have no preclusive
effect on, and is without prejudice to, the Liquidating Trustee’s (a) right to object to or seek
disallowance or reclassification of any Severance Claim on any other grounds as the Liquidating
Trustee may later assert; (b) right to assert any claims, demands for relief requiring an adversary
proceeding consistent with Rules 3007(b) and 7001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the
“FRBP”), counterclaims, rights of offset or recoupment, preference actions, fraudulent-transfer
actions, or any other bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy claims and causes of action against the Claimants;
and (c) right to withdraw without prejudice the Omnibus Objection as it applies to any Severance
Claim that is subject to the Omnibus Objection prior to the hearing thereon and, in case of any such
withdrawal, to assert the same (or other) objections to such claim in a later objection (or later
objections) to such claim;
(4) Providing that if any Claimant files or asserts an amendment of any other proof of
claim related to the Severance Claim, then such amendment shall be deemed disallowed with
prejudice without further order of the Court;
(5) Providing that, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made
applicable in contested matters through FRBP 7054 and 9014, any such ruling on the Omnibus
Objection shall be treated as a final judgment with respect to each Claimant and Severance Claim
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 11 of 30
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
subject to such ruling, and determining that there is no just reason for delay in entry of a final
judgment on the Severance Claims resolved by this Omnibus Objection;
(6) Directing and authorizing Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC to modify its claims
database consistent with the terms of the Order granting this Omnibus Objection; and
(7) Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: October 21, 2011 VENABLE LLP
By: /s/ Keith C. OwensKeith C. Owens
Counsel for SltnTrst LLC, the duly appointedLiquidating Trustee for the FleetwoodLiquidating Trust
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 12 of 30
EXHIBIT “1”
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 13 of 30
21st Omnibus Objection to Employee Claims
Secured
Claim
Amount
Priority Claim
Amount
Unsecured
Claim
Amount
Allowed
Priority
Amount
Allowed
Unsecured
Amount
8/20/2009 3504 Severance BRAUN, PHILIP J 23,053.00 23,053.00
● Proof of claim is not calculated correctly.
● Proof of claim amount should be $13,190.58. - 13,190.58 13,190.58 (9,862.42)
7/23/2009 1757 Severance COLEMAN, AMY M 58,000.00 58,000.00
● Proof of claim is not calculated correctly.
● Proof of claim amount should be $54,735.48. - 54,735.48 54,735.48 (3,264.52)
3/27/2009 146
Severance / Pre-Petition
Vacation DIAZ, DAVID R 19,852.53 19,852.53
● Severance portion of proof of claim was settled with Class
Action.
● Vacation portion of proof of claim in the amount of $7,596.76
is correct. - 7,596.76 7,596.76 (12,255.77)
4/7/2009 296
Severance / Pre-Petition
Vacation FENN, STEVEN L 42,727.18 42,727.18
● Severance portion of proof of claim was settled with Class
Action, disallow in it's entirety.
● Vacation portion of proof of claim is not calculated correctly.
Proof of claim amount should be $4,984.58. - 4,984.58 4,984.58 (37,742.60)
● Severance amount of proof of claim is calculated incorrectly.
● Proof of claim amount should be $72,667.06. - 72,667.06 72,667.06 (23,258.54)
8/12/2009 2900 Severance SCHWITZER, MAUREEN P 17,604.15 17,604.15
● Severance amount of proof of claim is calculated incorrectly.
● Proof of claim amount should be $16,250.00. - 16,250.00 16,250.00 (1,354.15)
Amount
Subject to
ObjectionFile Date Claim No Description Name
Allowed
Total
Amount
Total Claim
Amount
Proof of Claim Amounts
Basis for Objection
Proposed Treatment
1
12 Exhibit "1"
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 14 of 30
21st Omnibus Objection to Employee Claims
Secured
Claim
Amount
Priority Claim
Amount
Unsecured
Claim
Amount
Allowed
Priority
Amount
Allowed
Unsecured
Amount
Amount
Subject to
ObjectionFile Date Claim No Description Name
Allowed
Total
Amount
Total Claim
Amount
Proof of Claim Amounts
Basis for Objection
Proposed Treatment
8/19/2009 3456
Severance / Pre-Petition
Vacation SOSA, EDWARD R. blank
● Claimant filed "blank" proof of claim for severance and
vacation. Debtors' books and records reflect vacation in the
amount of $442.17 owing.
● Severance portion of proof of claim is invalid. Hourly
employee, not eligible under Fleetwood's Severance Policy. 442.17 (n/a)
2
13 Exhibit "1"
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 15 of 30
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
DECLARATION OF JODY TUTHILL
I, Jody Tuthill, declare and state as follows:
1. I was the Division Human Resources Manager of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.’s
(together with its affiliated debtors and debtors-in-possession, the “Debtors”) RV group, and held this
position from May 1, 2007 through June 26, 2009. As Division Human Resources Manager, my
responsibilities included overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Debtors’ employees. I have been
a human resources manager for the Debtors and various other companies since 1999.
2. In my capacity as the Division Human Resources Manager of the Debtors, I was
required to and have become generally familiar with the manner in which the Debtors’ books and
records are prepared and maintained. I have personally worked on and/or reviewed the books and
records that pertain to the Omnibus Objection (as defined below).1 I know the following facts to be
true to my own knowledge or have gained knowledge from the Debtors’ business records, which were
made at or about the time of the events recorded, and which were maintained in the ordinary course of
the Debtors’ business at or near the time of the acts, conditions, or events to which they relate. Each
document was prepared in the Debtors’ ordinary course of business by an individual who had personal
knowledge of the events being recorded and had or has a business duty to record such events
accurately. Such records are available for inspection and copies can be submitted to the Court under
seal, if required.
3. Since August 23, 2010, when the Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation of
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors and the Official Committee of Creditors
Holding Unsecured Claims (together with any and all amendments thereto, all exhibits and schedules
thereto and all documents incorporated by reference therein (as the same may be amended, modified
or supplemented from time to time in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof)) (the “Plan”)
became effective, I have served as a consultant for the Fleetwood Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”).
4. In my capacity as a consultant for the Trust, I was similarly required to and have
become generally familiar with the manner in which the Trust maintains custody and control over the
1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Omnibus Objection.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 16 of 30
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
“Liquidating Trust Assets” (as defined in the Plan), which were transferred to the Trust pursuant to the
Plan, which includes the Debtors’ books and records, as well as the contents of those books and
records. I have personally worked on and/or reviewed the books and records that pertain to the
Omnibus Objection (as defined below), which are maintained in the ordinary course of the Trust’s
business. I know the following facts to be true to my own knowledge or have gained knowledge from
the Debtors’ business records, which have been in the custody and control of the Trust in accordance
with the Plan and Liquidating Trust Agreement.
5. I submit this Declaration in support of the Twenty-First Omnibus Objection Seeking
(1) Disallowance, Modification and/or Reduction of Certain Severance Claims (A) Subject to
Severance Class Action Settlement, and/or (B) Not Supported by the Debtors' Books and Records; and
(2) Reclassification of Certain Misclassified Severance Claims (the “Omnibus Objection”) with
respect to the following claimants and their respective claims: Braun, Philip J., 3504; Coleman, Amy
M., 1757; Diaz, David R., 146; Fenn, Steven L., 296; Ferrer, Eduardo, 2707; Fields, Barry W., 3416;
Gaughan, Bryan P., 3741; Hertzog, Charles L., 1644; Juarez, John, 4107; Lautzenheiser, Scott A.,
3576; Merritt, Debbra, 13674; Mestlin, John C., 2946; Orozco, Jose H., 3472; Roye, Travis Bradley,
2680; Schwitzer, Maureen P., 2900; and Sosa, Edward, 3456 (collectively, the “Claimants”).
6. I am over 18 years of age, and I have personal knowledge of each of the facts stated in
this Declaration, except for those facts stated on information and belief and, as to those facts, I am
informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would testify as to the matters
set forth below based upon my personal knowledge, review of the documents, or opinion.
7. A total of approximately 18,450 proofs of claim have been filed against the Debtors.
The Liquidating Trustee is in the process of reviewing these claims and has determined that many of
the claims are objectionable, including the Severance Claims subject to the Omnibus Objection.
8. Prior to March 9, 2009, the Debtors maintained a severance policy for certain, full-
time, salaried employees not compensated on an hourly basis (the “Severance Policy”). A true and
correct copy of the Severance Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” The Severance Policy was
cancelled on March 9, 2009.
9. Since March 9, 2009, the Debtors have terminated approximately 860 full-time,
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 17 of 30
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
salaried employees who were not compensated on an hourly basis.
10. I have prepared Exhibit “1” to the Omnibus Objection, which is incorporated herein by
this reference. Each of the Severance Claims identified in Exhibit “1” relates to “severance pay”
purportedly owed by the Debtors to each of the Claimants. Specifically, for each of the Severance
Claims set forth in Exhibit “1,” I reviewed the Debtors’ books and records, and the proofs of claim
subject to the Omnibus Objection. Based on my review, I have determined that (1) certain of the
Severance Claims have been settled pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Severance Order,
(2) certain of the Severance Claims are not supported by the Debtors’ books and records, and/or (3) a
portion of the Misclassified Claim is misclassified as a priority claim as more particularly described
below and on Exhibit “1.”
The Settled Severance Claims
11. Based on my review of the Settlement Agreement and the Severance Order, certain of
the Severance Claims were filed by Severance Settlement Class Members (the “Settled Claims”). The
following Claimants filed Settled Claims:
DIAZ, DAVID R., 146; FENN, STEVEN L., 296; HERTZOG, CHARLES L., 1644; and OROZCO, JOSE H., 3472.
12. Accordingly, the holders of the Settled Claims as more particularly described on
Exhibit “1” are Severance Settlement Class Members who are bound by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the Severance Order. As such, these Claimants released all claims2 that were asserted
or could have been asserted against the Debtors in the Severance Class Action, including the Settled
Claims. The Settled Claims more particularly set forth on Exhibit “1” are therefore not entitled to
additional compensation from the Debtors. Accordingly, each Settled Claim should be disallowed in
its entirety.
Certain of the Severance Claims Do Not Match the Debtors’ Books and Records
The Non-Severance Settlement Class Members’ Severance Claims
13. In addition, based on my review of the Debtors’ books and records, certain of the
2 The Settlement Agreement specifically excludes the Non-Included Claims.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 18 of 30
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VE
NA
BL
EL
LP
20
49
CE
NT
UR
YP
AR
KE
AS
T,
SU
ITE
21
00
LO
SA
NG
EL
ES
,C
A9
00
67
31
0-2
29
-99
00
Severance Claims, filed by Claimants other than Severance Settlement Class Members, are not
supported by the Debtors' books and records. The following Claimants that fall within this category
are identified below:
BRAUN, PHILIP J., 3504; COLEMAN, AMY M., 1757; FIELDS, BARRY W., 3416; GAUGHAN, BRYAN P., 3741; JUAREZ, JOHN, 4107; LAUTZENHEISER, SCOTT A., 3576; MERRITT, DEBBRA, 13674; MESTLIN, JOHN C., 2946; ROYE, TRAVIS BRADLEY, 2680; SCHWITZER, MAUREEN P., 2900; and SOSA, EDWARD, 3456.
14. After a thorough review of the Debtors' books and records, each of these Severance
Claims appears to have resulted from one of the following scenarios: (1) the Severance Claim was
filed by an employee who is not eligible for severance pay pursuant to the Severance Policy, or (2) the
severance amount asserted was miscalculated by the Claimant. As the holders of these Severance
Claims are not entitled to the severance amounts asserted therein, such Severance Claims must be
reduced, modified and/or disallowed in their entirety as set forth on Exhibit “1.”
The Debtor’s Sick Policy
15. In addition, certain of the Severance Claims assert claims that arise out of or are related
to the Debtors’ sick policy. Under its sick policy, the Debtors granted 40 hours of sick time per year
to employees working at its corporate headquarters, beginning on January 1 of each year. Prior to
December 2007, eligible employees were permitted to roll unused sick-time hours over to the
following year and, therefore, accumulate more than 40 hours. That policy changed after December
2007, at which time accumulated sick time was “banked.” Sick time granted after January 1, 2008,
could only be used in the calendar year for which it is granted. Under the Debtors’ sick policy,
employees were permitted to use “banked” sick time after they used all current sick time.
Significantly, employees could only use sick time, and were not entitled to any payment for unused
sick time.
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 19 of 30
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 20 of 30
EXHIBIT “A”
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 21 of 30
Procedure 451
Revised:Effective: 7/01/04
i. POLICY
The Company endeavors to have associates that are rested and focused in theaccomplishment of their responsibilities. Vacation time is provided to ensure thatassociates receive a substantial break from the work routine.
II. PROCEDURE
This policy applies to all hourly, weekly, monthly, and management associates locatedoutside of California, Vacation time is granted to regular associates working a full-timeschedule.
All regular associates working a full-time schedule are eligible to take vacation with payafter completion of each increment of 12 months of uninterrupted employment that followthe date of hire or adjusted service date if applicable.
Associates may take as much vacation time in a year that is earned. Associates may nottake more vacation time than is earned. Unused vacation time will not be "rolled over" intothe following year. Earned and unused vacation time will be lost at the end of theassociate's anniversary year. Vacation time must be approved by management and meetbusiness requirements.
Associates will not be permitted to take vacation time that has not been earned. Anyassociate taking vacation time not yet earned will not be paid for that time, It is theassociate's responsibility to ensure that adequate vacation time has been accrued prior totaking vacation. Associates may be subject to disciplinary action for such misuse ofvacation time.
e Vacation time must be taken in increments of at least one-half day (4 hours).e Vacation pay will be calculated at the straight time, regular base rate of pay in effect at
the time vacation is taken. At termination, unused vacation pay is based upon thestraight-time, regular base rate of pay in effect at the time of termination.
e Vacation time off does not count toward the calculation of overtime hours.· Payment of wages in lieu of vacation time will not be made to weekly, monthly and
management associates, except as provided upon termination (see below). Hourlyassociates will have the option of taking vacation time off with pay at the time of
vacation or receive payment for vacation in lieu of time off.e A Company-paid holiday that falls within an associate's approved vacation period will
be paid as a holiday and will not be deducted from the associate's allotted vacation.e Associates do not earn vacation benefits while on leaves of absence longer than 30
days, except for military leave and industrial injury leave.e Military leave of absence and industrial injury leave of absence counts as continuous
19 Exhibit "A"
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 22 of 30
service in computing vacation time if the associate returns to work under circumstancesentitling him or her to re-employment under federal law.
. Vacation must be scheduled with and approved by associates' supervisor well inadvance of the desired vacation date(s). Vacations will be considered for approvalbased on critical workload, inordinate or special projects, adequacy of coverage in theassociate's absence and other business factors.
Vacation Pay Upon Termination: An associate whose employment with the Company is
terminated for any reason other than retirement or early retirement will be paid for accruedunused vacation earned through the last day of employment, subject to the limitationsdescribed above.
Computation of vacation pay upon termination will be based on the number of hours anassociate works in a standard pay period (Le., 40 hour work-week for a full-time associate).The associate's base pay (excluding retirement, bonus, overtime, or other premiumpayment) will be used to calculate the amount due.
Associates terminating their employment, as the result of retirement or early retirement, willbe permitted to utilize vacation time to extend their termination date to the end of thecurrent quarter,
Example: Six days vacation unused at termination:
Weekly Base PayDivided by # Hours in WeekHourly RateMultiplied by # Hours VacationVacation Pay
$30040
$7,5048$360
Management Responsibility: Managers are responsible for:1. Scheduling vacations in accordance with operational requirements with
consideration being given to associates' preferences.
2. Ensuring that associates are granted time off each year in accordance with theirvacation eligibility,
3. Maintaining vacation records utilizing the annual Associate Attendance Recordform. Associate Attendance Records should be maintained for all exempt,nonexempt, management and non-management associates, and updated on atimely basis as vacation is used. The records should be maintained in associates'personnel files,
4. When an associate's employment terminates, a copy of each year's AssociateAttendance Record must be forwarded with the Associate Change Form to theHuman Resources Department. This Is to ensure an accurate payout of any earnedbut unused vacation at the time of termination.
Earned vacation hours are based upon the numbers of continuous years of servicecalculated from the associate's date of hire. Eligible associates will earn vacation based
20 Exhibit "A"
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 23 of 30
We so expect to abide by the above polley or procedure. However, Senior Management reseNes the right to take alternateaction If It Is deemed necessary.
These policies, procedures and practices are subject to change, modification or abolishment wlthofit notice at the Company'sdiscretion In order to maintain legal compliance, operational effectiveness and the general scope of desired workplaceconditons.
21 Exhibit "A"
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 24 of 30
This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.
August 2010 F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
NOTE: When using this form to indicate service of a proposed order, DO NOT list any person or entity in Category I.Proposed orders do not generate an NEF because only orders that have been entered are placed on the CM/ECF docket.
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is:2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, CA 90067
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document described as
TWENTY-FIRST OMNIBUS OBJECTION SEEKING (1) DISALLOWANCE, REDUCTION AND/ORMODIFICATION OF CERTAIN SEVERANCE CLAIMS (A) SUBJECT TO SEVERANCE CLASSACTION SETTLEMENT, AND/OR (B) NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DEBTORS’ BOOKS ANDRECORDS; AND (2) RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN MISCLASSIFIED SEVERANCECLAIMS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF JODYTUTHILL IN SUPPORT THEREOFwill be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) inthe manner indicated below:
I. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (“NEF”) – Pursuant to controlling GeneralOrder(s) and Local Bankruptcy Rule(s) (“LBR”), the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlinkto the document. On October 21, 2011 , I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceedingand determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the emailaddress(es) indicated below:
Service information continued on attached page
II. SERVED BY U.S. MAIL OR OVERNIGHT MAIL(indicate method for each person or entity served):On October 21, 2011, I served the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the last known address(es) in this bankruptcycase or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States Mail,first class, postage prepaid, and/or with an overnight mail service addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutesa declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.
Service information continued on attached page
III. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (indicate method for each person orentity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on , I served the followingperson(s) and/or entity(ies) by personal delivery, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), byfacsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery onthe judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.
Service information continued on attached page
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
10/21/2011 Bambi Clark /s/ Bambi ClarkDate Type Name Signature
Case 6:09-bk-14254-MJ Doc 3547 Filed 10/21/11 Entered 10/21/11 15:50:23 Desc Main Document Page 25 of 30
This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.
August 2010 F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (“NEF”)
