United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of...

United States Bankruptcy CourtCentral District of California

Judge Neil Bason, PresidingCourtroom 1545 Calendar

Los Angeles

Thursday, August 27, 2020 1545 Hearing Room

8:30 AMMaria D. Gomez and Jose Meneses2:20-15889 Chapter 13

#1.00 Hrg re: Motion to avoid junior lien ondebtor's principal residence with BCMB1 Trust

12Docket

Continue to 10/22/20 at 8:30 a.m. to address the following issues. Appearances are not required on 8/27/20. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.

Pursuant to Judge Bason's COVID19 Procedures, ONLY TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES WILL BE PERMITTED until further notice. Please contact CourtCall at (888) 882-6878 to make arrangements for any telephonic appearance. There is no need to contact the Court for permission. Parties who are not represented by an attorney will be able to use CourtCall for free through 9/30/20. Attorneys will receive a 25% discount (for more information, see www.cacb.uscourts.gov, "Judges," "Bason, N.," "Telephonic Instructions").

Reasons:

Appraisal; date of valuation. The junior lienholder has requested (dkt. 22) additional time to obtain an appraisal. Debtor is directed to provide reasonable access for that purpose. The junior lienholder is directed to file and serve the appraisal at least 14 days before the continued hearing. Note: Judge Bason's tentative ruling is to require valuations at or near the petition date. See In re Gutierrez, 503 B.R. 458 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2013).

At the continued hearing the parties should address how they propose to resolve their disputes - e.g., (i) with an evidentiary hearing; (ii) with a court ruling based solely on the written record (to save costs, if all parties consent), (iii) through mediation, or (iv) through appointment of an appraiser (jointly selected by the parties/their appraisers) as the court's own expert under FRE 706.

If appearances are not required at the start of this tentative ruling but you

Tentative Ruling:

Page 1 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMMaria D. Gomez and Jose MenesesCONT... Chapter 13

wish to dispute the tentative ruling, or for further explanation of "appearances required/are not required," please see Judge Bason's Procedures (posted at www.cacb.uscourts.gov) then search for "tentative rulings." If appearances are required, and you fail to appear telephonically without adequately resolving this matter by consent, then you may waive your right to be heard on matters that are appropriate for disposition at this hearing.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Maria D. Gomez Represented ByLeroy Bishop Austin

Joint Debtor(s):

Jose Meneses Represented ByLeroy Bishop Austin

Trustee(s):

Kathy A Dockery (TR) Pro Se

Page 2 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMElin Khachatourian2:19-24696 Chapter 13

#2.00 Hrg re: Motion to avoid lien under 11 U.S.C. section 522(f) with Raeisi Group, Inc.

49Docket

Appearances required.


Key documents reviewed (in addition to motion papers): Raeisi Group Inc.'s opposition papers (dkt. 52-59), Debtor's notice of hearing (dkt. 64), no reply is on file

Current issuesDebtor seeks an order under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) avoiding two judgment

liens against Debtor’s residence, located at 1316 Irving Avenue, Glendale, California 91201 (the "Property"), recorded in favor of Raeisi Group, Inc. ("Lienholder"): (w) a judgment lien (the "Non-Debtor Lien") securing a $470,145.31 judgment entered against Debtor’s non-filing spouse, Erik Hovsepian (the "Non-Filing Spouse") and (x) a judgment lien securing a $57,910.31 judgment entered against Debtor (the "Debtor Lien").

(a) Legal standardSection 522(f) provides, in relevant part, that a debtor:

May avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that such lien impairs an exemption to which the debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b) of this section, if such lien is—

Tentative Ruling:

Page 3 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMElin KhachatourianCONT... Chapter 13

(A) a judicial lien . . . . [11 U.S.C. 522(f)]Section 522(f)(2) provides a formula for calculating the extent to which

a lien impairs an exemption: add the lien, all other liens on the property, and the amount of the exemption that the debtor could claim if there were no liens on the property and then subtract from that amount the value of the debtor’s interest in the property in the absence of any liens. In re Meyer, 373 B.R. 84, 86 (9th Cir. BAP 2007); In re Pike, 243 B.R. 66, 71 (9th Cir. BAP 1999). When multiple liens are involved, there is authority that the liens must be "subtracted in order of reverse priority." In re Hanger, 217 B.R. 592, 595 (9th Cir. BAP 1997), aff'd, 196 F.3d 1292 (9th Cir. 1999). See also In re Heaney,453 B.R. 42, 48 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011) (same).

(b) Procedural issuesDebtor did not comply with Local Bankruptcy Rule ("LBR") 4003-2(b)

(1), which requires a separate notice and motion for each lien that is sought to be avoided. The tentative ruling is to excuse Debtor’s non-compliance because it does not appear to have prejudiced Lienholder, but Debtor’s counsel is cautioned that failure to comply with applicable rules in future may result in adverse consequences.

Alternatively, the tentative ruling is that Lienholder has waived and forfeited any assertion of prejudice because this issue was not raised in its’ opposition papers.

(c) The Property is property of the estateDebtor states that she purchased the Property with her then-husband,

now estranged, in April 2008, and that title to the Property is in the name of Erik Hovsepian and Elin Khachatourian Family Trust. Dkt. 49, pdf. p. 5, para. 7. Debtor asserts a community property interest in the Property. Dkt. 15, p.12.

Although not raised by either party, the tentative ruling is that the Property is property of the estate, notwithstanding the form of title. See Cal. Fam. Code 760 (Under California law, all property acquired by a spouse during marriage is presumptively community property); Cal. Fam. Code 761(a) ("[u]nless the trust instrument . . . expressly provides otherwise, community property that is transferred in trust remains community property during the marriage . . . if the trust . . . is revocable . . . ."); 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(1)&(2) (property of the estate includes "all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case," and "[a]ll interests of the debtor and the debtor’s spouse in community property as of the

Page 4 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMElin KhachatourianCONT... Chapter 13

commencement of the case . . . ."); In re Brace, 9 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 7/23/2020); In re Cutter, 398 B.R. 6, 19 (9th Cir. BAP 2008) (citing 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(1) and (c)(2)) ("While assets transferred to a trust do not ordinarily become property of the bankruptcy estate of the trust’s trustee, powers that a debtor is a trustee of a trust may exercise for his or her own benefit become property of the estate" and "to the extent a debtor holds a beneficial interest in a trust, that beneficial interest becomes property of the estate, unless it is protected by a valid spendthrift provision").

(d) Avoidability of the Non-Debtor LienLienholder argues that Debtor cannot use section 522(f) to avoid the

Non-Debtor Lien because the lien secures a judgment against Debtor’s Non-Filing Spouse who is not a debtor in bankruptcy nor a party to this motion. Dkt. 52, p.2:19-23. Lienholder also argues that the Non-Debtor Lien is not avoidable because Debtor’s Non-Filing Spouse would be prohibited from avoiding the lien if he were to commence his own chapter 13 bankruptcy case because the debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4). Id. p. 9:18-10:13. In support of this argument, Lienholder relies on the non-binding case of Castle v. Parrish, 29 B.R. 869, 874 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983). But Castle is inapplicable, because it involves the avoidability of a lien securing child support, which is a debt "of a kind that is specified in section 523(a)(5)," and which section 522(f)(1) unambiguously excepts from avoidance. See 11 U.S.C. 522(f)(1)(A) (. . . the debtor may avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest of the debtor in property to the extent that the lien impairs and exemption to which debtor would have been entitled under subsection (b), if such lien is – a judicial lien, other than a judicial lien that secures a debt of a kind that is specified in section 523(a)(5)") (emphasis added). Although Lienholder argues that its judgment against Debtor’s Non-Filing Spouse is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4), Rule 7001(6) (Fed. R. Bankr. P.) would require the initiation of an adversary proceeding for any determination of nondischargeability in bankruptcy. See In re Kimmel, 367 B.R. 174, 180-81 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2007) (reviewing procedures for nondischargeability action against non-debtor spouse).

In addition, dischargeability is not at issue. That is an "in personam"concept, but Debtor seeks an "in rem" remedy: avoiding the Non-Debtor Lien on estate Property. Accordingly, the tentative ruling is that any issues regarding the dischargeability of Lienholder’s debts against the Non-Filing Spouse are not properly before this Court in this hearing.

Page 5 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMElin KhachatourianCONT... Chapter 13The tentative ruling is also that on the issue of avoidability, Debtor can

avoid the Non-Debtor Lien if Debtor can establish that it impairs her claimed homestead exemption. See, e.g., In re Obedian, 546 B.R. 409, 423-25 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016) (concluding that debtor could avoid judicial lien against non-filing spouse because lien attached to community property interests as a debt incurred during marriage and, because the property was property of the estate, the lien impaired debtor’s exemption).

(e) ValuationDebtor asserts that to the extent the liens exceed the $66,761.28

equity in the Property after deducting senior liens and Debtor’s homestead exemption from Debtor’s alleged $935,000 fair market value, Lienholder’s liens are avoidable. Dkt. 4, p. 4. Conversely, Lienholder argues that the Property is actually worth $1,315,000, and therefore do not impair Debtor's homestead exemption in any amount. Dkt. 55.

The parties should be prepared to address how they propose to resolve their disputes - e.g., (i) with an evidentiary hearing; (ii) with a court ruling based solely on the written record (to save costs, if all parties consent), (iii) through mediation, or (iv) through appointment of an appraiser (jointly selected by the parties/their appraisers) as the court's own expert under FRE 706.

If appearances are not required at the start of this tentative ruling but you wish to dispute the tentative ruling, or for further explanation of "appearances required/are not required," please see Judge Bason's Procedures (posted at www.cacb.uscourts.gov) then search for "tentative rulings." If appearances are required, and you fail to appear telephonically without adequately resolving this matter by consent, then you may waive your right to be heard on matters that are appropriate for disposition at this hearing.

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elin Khachatourian Represented ByJeffrey J Hagen

Trustee(s):


Page 6 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMErik Dye and Monica Dye2:20-15961 Chapter 13

#3.00 Hrg re: Motion for order determining value of collateral [11 U.S.C. section 506(a), FRBP 3012]

16Docket

Grant, setting the value of the 2016 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab at $16,150.00. Appearances are not required. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.


Proposed order: Movant is directed to lodge a proposed order via LOU within 7 days after the hearing date. See LBR 9021-1(b)(1)(B).


Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Erik Dye Represented ByDavid Samuel Shevitz

Page 7 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMErik Dye and Monica DyeCONT... Chapter 13

Joint Debtor(s):

Monica Dye Represented ByDavid Samuel Shevitz

Trustee(s):


Page 8 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMJannie T. Murillo2:20-14575 Chapter 13

#4.00 Hrg re: Motion to "Cram Down" Debtor's Vehicle 2015 Toyota Corolla under 11 U.S.C. §§1325(a)(5)(B) and 506(a)

29Docket

Continue to 9/24/20 at 8:30 a.m., and set a deadline of 9/10/20 for Debtor to file and serve a declaration addressing the issues below. Appearances are not required on 8/27/20. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.


Current issues: (1) Missing copy of appraisalDebtor states that she had her car appraised at CarMax on June 10,

2020, and that a copy of that appraisal is attached to the motion as Exhibit B. Dkt. 29, p.5, para. 5.

There are no exhibits attached to the motion.

(2) Valuation methodUnder 11 U.S.C. 506(a):

If the debtor is an individual in a case under chapter 7 or 13, [the] value with respect to personal property securing an allowed claim shall be determined based on the replacement value of such property as of the date of the filing of the petition ... With respect to property acquired for personal, family, or household purposes, replacement value shall mean the price a retail

Tentative Ruling:

Page 9 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMJannie T. MurilloCONT... Chapter 13

merchant would charge for property of that kind considering the age and condition of the property at the time value is determined. [11 U.S.C. 506(a)(2) (emphasis added)].

Debtor states that her vehicle was appraised at $4,500. Id. Debtor does not specifically state whether that appraisal value was the replacement value, as determined by the price a retail merchant would charge, or some other valuation method. But based on Debtor's declaration it appears that she has used the trade-in value for the vehicle, which does not comply with the above-quoted statutory provisions.


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jannie T. Murillo Represented ByChirnese L Liverpool

Trustee(s):


Page 10 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMTonya Elaine Crawford2:20-15627 Chapter 13

#5.00 Hrg re: Debtor's motion to reconsider denialof extension to file credit counseling certificate

29Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Withdrawn (dkt. 45)

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Tonya Elaine Crawford Pro Se

Trustee(s):


Page 11 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMElias Robert Abu Shanab and Sarah Rhea Abu Shanab2:18-25099 Chapter 13

#6.00 Hrg re: Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

44Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Voluntarily dismissed (dkt. 51)

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Elias Robert Abu Shanab Represented ByHeather J Canning

Joint Debtor(s):

Sarah Rhea Abu Shanab Represented ByHeather J Canning

Trustee(s):


Page 12 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMMelanie Honey Adler2:19-10855 Chapter 13

#7.00 Hrg re: Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

66Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: motion resolved (dkt. 79)

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Melanie Honey Adler Represented BySteven L Bryson

Trustee(s):


Page 13 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMJennifer Johanna Haas2:19-11833 Chapter 13

#8.00 Hrg re: Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n)and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

82Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Motion resolved (dkt. 89)

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Jennifer Johanna Haas Represented ByCaroline S Kim

Trustee(s):


Page 14 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMJuan Martin Licerio and Kathy Deanna Rodriguez2:19-18007 Chapter 13

#9.00 Hrg re: Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n)and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

35Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Motion resolved (dkt. 43).

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Juan Martin Licerio Represented ByJulie J Villalobos

Joint Debtor(s):

Kathy Deanna Rodriguez Represented ByJulie J Villalobos

Trustee(s):


Page 15 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMDeepak Sagar2:17-23312 Chapter 13

#10.00 HearingRE: [73] Motion under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n) and (w) to modify plan or suspend plan payments

73Docket



There is no tentative ruling, but Debtor should be prepared to address the issues raised by the Chapter 13 Trustee (dkt. 77).


Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Deepak Sagar Represented ByMadhu Kalra

Trustee(s):


Page 16 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMDeepak SagarCONT... Chapter 13

Page 17 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMGricelda Valenzuela2:17-15360 Chapter 13

#11.00 Hrg re: Debtor's motion for voluntary dismissal of chapter 13 case

44Docket

Grant as set forth below. Appearances are not required. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.


Proposed order: Debtor is directed to lodge a proposed order via LOU within 7 days after the hearing date, and attach a copy of this tentative ruling, thereby incorporating it as this Court's final ruling, subject to any changes ordered at the hearing. See LBR 9021-1(b)(1)(B).

Key documents reviewed (in addition to motion papers): Order setting hearing (dkt. 47), declaration of Daniel King (dkt. 49).

Reasons:This Court has reviewed the Declaration of Daniel King (dkt. 49)

addressing the issues raised in this Court's order setting the matter for hearing (dkt. 47).

The tentative ruling is that (i) Mr. King cannot charge Debtor or the bankruptcy estate for any time spent on the Dismissal Motion, including preparing for and attending the hearing (if applicable), because any such billing would be unreasonable in view of the inaccurate representation by Mr.

Tentative Ruling:

Page 18 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMGricelda ValenzuelaCONT... Chapter 13

King; but Mr. King can charge fees and expenses in the normal course for unrelated matters; and (ii) Mr. King is cautioned that failure to make accurate representations in pleadings filed with this Court in future may result in adverse consequences.

The tentative ruling is also to grant the motion and dismiss this case with a 180-day bar to being a debtor in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 109(g)(2).


Party Information

Debtor(s):

Gricelda Valenzuela Represented ByDaniel King

Trustee(s):


Page 19 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMJosefina Flores Jimenez2:15-14839 Chapter 13

#12.00 Hrg re: Motion for an Order Excusing DeceasedDebtor from Personally Completing and Filing anApplication for Entry of Discharge

50Docket

Grant. Appearances are not required. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.




Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Josefina Flores Jimenez Represented ByGlenn Ward Calsada

Page 20 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMJosefina Flores JimenezCONT... Chapter 13

Trustee(s):


Page 21 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMRoxyana Marie Vivero2:17-24008 Chapter 13

#13.00 Hrg re: Debtor's objection to Claim Number 1by Claimant Kinecta Federal Credit Union

44Docket

Grant. Appearances are not required. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.




Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Roxyana Marie Vivero Represented ByArsen Pogosov

Page 22 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMRoxyana Marie ViveroCONT... Chapter 13

Trustee(s):Kathy A Dockery (TR) Pro Se

Page 23 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMKenneth A Lindahl2:20-10595 Chapter 13

#14.00 Hrg re: Debtor's objection to proof of claim no. 3filed by Bank of America, N.A.

39Docket

Continue to 9/24/20 at 8:30 a.m. to address the following issues. Appearances are not required on 8/27/20. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.


Continued hearing date: The continued hearing date is conditioned on the movant serving all amended or supplemental papers in time for self-calendaring on that date.

Note: Notice of the continued hearing must be via certified mail. SeeRule 7004(h) (Fed. R. Bankr. P.).

Reasons: Lack of cost/benefit analysis. The posted Procedures of Judge Bason (available at www.cacb.uscourts.gov) provide:

§ 502: claim objections & cost/benefit analysis. When objecting to claims, be sure to include an analysis of whether the costs of preparing and litigating the claim objection (administrative expenses) do not exceed the anticipated benefits (reductions in claims). For example, if the anticipated dividend is small or 0%

Tentative Ruling:

Page 24 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMKenneth A LindahlCONT... Chapter 13

then the attorney fees incurred in prosecuting your claim objection to any general unsecured claim probably will exceed the benefit to the bankruptcy estate/debtor, so filing that objection would be a waste of the bankruptcy estate's (and everyone else's) resources (unless, for example, the claim is nondischargeable, in which event the attorney fees might well be justified).

No later than 7 days after the date of this hearing the movant must file either:

(1) a supplemental declaration explaining why the attorney fees for this objection are justified (including supporting evidence, such as a copy of the plan showing the projected dividend to the claimant, and a calculation comparing that projected dividend against the attorney fees related to this claim objection), or

(2) a withdrawal of the claim objection.

No fees on this matter, absent specific authorization. Counsel is directed not to charge any fees on this matter (including all past, present and future work related to this claim objection), and to return any fees received on this matter, unless and until this Court expressly finds: "Counsel has provided a cost/benefit analysis that is sufficient for purposes of Judge Bason's posted Procedures regarding claim objections." It is counsel's responsibility to include the quoted phrase, if warranted, in the proposed order on this claim objection.

This Court does not have the capacity to monitor all fee applications to assure compliance with the foregoing limitation on fees. But if counsel is found to have disregarded this limitation then this Court may impose sanctions.


Party Information

Page 25 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMKenneth A LindahlCONT... Chapter 13

Debtor(s):

Kenneth A Lindahl Represented ByCarl Shaff II

Trustee(s):


Page 26 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMDora Jane Bates2:20-11725 Chapter 13

#15.00 Cont'd hrg re: Motion for disallowing IRBC3, LLCclaim number 1 on court's claims registerfr. 6/25/20

24Docket *** VACATED *** REASON: Motion withdrawn (dkt. 33)

Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Dora Jane Bates Represented ByMarcus Gomez

Trustee(s):


Page 27 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMMichael John Morales and Maria C Morales2:19-20028 Chapter 13

#16.00 Cont'd hrg re: Objection to InternalRevenue Services Claim #4-1fr. 07/23/20

42Docket

Tentative Ruling for 8/27/20:Deny for the reasons set forth below. Appearances are not required. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.


Proposed order: The IRS is directed to lodge a proposed order via LOU within 7 days after the hearing date, and attach a copy of this tentative ruling, thereby incorporating it as this Court's final ruling, subject to any changes ordered at the hearing. See LBR 9021-1(b)(1)(B).

Key documents reviewed (in addition to motion papers): Internal revenue service's opposition (dkt. 52, the "IRS Opposition"), no reply is on file

Reasons:The tentative ruling is to deny the motion as follows:

(1) This matter was continued to this date for Debtor to properly serve the IRS and to file a supplemental cost-benefit analysis or, alternatively, withdraw the motion. As of the preparation of this tentative ruling, Debtor has not complied. Therefore, the tentative ruling is to deny the motion for lack of

Tentative Ruling:

Page 28 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMMichael John Morales and Maria C MoralesCONT... Chapter 13

prosecution. The tentative ruling is also that, as set forth in the tentative ruling for 7/23/20 (below), Counsel may not charge for any fees associated with the motion.

(2) In addition, the tentative ruling is to deny the motion for the reasons stated in the IRS Opposition.


Tentative Ruling for 7/23/20:Continue to 8/27/20 at 8:30 a.m. to address the following issues. Appearances are not required on 7/23/20. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.


Reasons: (A) Service.

The motion papers were not served:(1) to the address for notices in the creditor's proof of claim (claim no.

4);(2) as well as in the manner prescribed by Rule 7004(b)(4)&(5) -

addresses and instructions are included in the Court Manual.No later than seven days after the date of this hearing, Movant must

file and serve notice of the continued hearing and proof of service reflecting

Page 29 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles



service of the motion papers in a manner consistent with this tentative ruling.

(B) Lack of cost/benefit analysis. The posted Procedures of Judge Bason (available at www.cacb.uscourts.gov) provide:

§ 502: claim objections & cost/benefit analysis. When objecting to claims, be sure to include an analysis of whether the costs of preparing and litigating the claim objection (administrative expenses) do not exceed the anticipated benefits (reductions in claims). For example, if the anticipated dividend is small or 0% then the attorney fees incurred in prosecuting your claim objection to any general unsecured claim probably will exceed the benefit to the bankruptcy estate/debtor, so filing that objection would be a waste of the bankruptcy estate's (and everyone else's) resources (unless, for example, the claim is nondischargeable, in which event the attorney fees might well be justified).

No later than 7 days after the date of this hearing the movant must file either:

(1) a supplemental declaration explaining why the attorney fees for this objection are justified (including supporting evidence, such as a copy of the plan showing the projected dividend to the claimant, and a calculation comparing that projected dividend against the attorney fees related to this claim objection), or

(2) a withdrawal of the claim objection.

No fees on this matter, absent specific authorization. Counsel is directed not to charge any fees on this matter (including all past, present and future work related to this claim objection), and to return any fees received on this matter, unless and until this Court expressly finds: "Counsel has provided a cost/benefit analysis that is sufficient for purposes of Judge Bason's posted Procedures regarding claim objections." It is counsel's responsibility to include the quoted phrase, if warranted, in the proposed order on this claim objection.

This Court does not have the capacity to monitor all fee applications to assure compliance with the foregoing limitation on fees. But if counsel is found to have disregarded this limitation then this Court may impose sanctions.

Page 30 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles




Party Information

Debtor(s):

Michael John Morales Represented ByClaudia C Osuna

Joint Debtor(s):

Maria C Morales Represented ByClaudia C Osuna

Trustee(s):


Page 31 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMRuth Francois Jefferson2:20-16699 Chapter 13

#17.00 Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal and Other Remedies,Due to Simultaneous Bankruptcy Cases

12Docket

Dismiss this case for the reasons stated in the order setting this hearing (dkt.12, served dkt.17), and the responses thereto (Ure Decl. dkt.25; Goldbach Decl. dkt.28, superseding dkt.18 which was withdrawn per dkt.29). Notwithstanding any dismissal, this Court will retain jurisdiction to the full extent provided by LBR 1017-2(f), including but not limited to jurisdiction regarding the motion of the United States Trustee for disgorgement (dkt.26). Appearances are not required. If you wish to dispute the tentative ruling you must notify other parties of your intent to appear telephonically.



Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Ruth Francois Jefferson Represented By

Page 32 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMRuth Francois JeffersonCONT... Chapter 13

Marc A Goldbach

Trustee(s):


Page 33 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMSara Galvan2:17-14123 Chapter 13

#18.00 Hrg re: Motion Under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-1 (n)and (w) to Modify Plan or Suspend Plan Payments

34Docket



There is no tentative ruling, but Debtors should be prepared to address the issues raised in the Trustee's Comments Or Objection (dkt. 37) and Debtor's belated declaration in response (dkt.41), which appears to have incorrect exhibits attached.


Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Debtor(s):

Sara Galvan Represented ByRebecca Tomilowitz

Page 34 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMSara GalvanCONT... Chapter 13

Trustee(s):


Page 35 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMTatung Company of America, Inc.2:19-21521 Chapter 11

#19.00 Hrg re: Motion For Order Extending Debtor's ExclusivePeriods To File Plan Of Reorganization And ObtainAcceptances Thereof

300Docket

Grant, extending Debtor's exclusivity period to file a plan to 10/28/20 and to gain acceptance of a plan to 12/28/20, based on Debtor's motion and the non-opposition (dkt. 315) of the Creditors' Committee. Appearances requiredby counsel for Debtor, who is directed to address the issues raised in this Court's Order Provisionally Granting Application And Setting Hearing On Shortened Notice (dkt. 302).




Tentative Ruling:

Party Information

Page 36 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


8:30 AMTatung Company of America, Inc.CONT... Chapter 11

Debtor(s):

Tatung Company of America, Inc. Represented ByRon BenderLindsey L SmithJuliet Y Oh

Page 37 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


9:30 AM2:00-00000 Chapter

#1.00 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE CHAPTER 13 9:30 AMCONFIRMATION CALENDAR CAN BE VIEWED ON THE COURT'S WEBSITE (www.cacb.uscourts.gov) UNDER: JUDGES>BASON, N.>CHAPTER 13>CONFIRMATION HEARINGS CALENDAR

0Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Page 38 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM



Los Angeles


11:00 AM2:00-00000 Chapter

#1.00 PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE CHAPTER 13 HEARINGSat 11:00 AM CAN BE VIEWED ON THE COURT'S WEBSITE(www.cacb.uscourts.gov) UNDER: JUDGES>BASON, N.>CHAPTER 13

0Docket

- NONE LISTED -

Tentative Ruling:

Page 39 of 398/26/2020 12:39:55 PM

Date post:	01-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of...

Documents