In re Romano

(N.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling that denied appellant’s (Jones) application for post facto appointment as special counsel to debtor and his administrative expense motion. Debtor filed a routine chapter 7 case and obtained a discharge; however, she failed to disclose an employment discrimination action she filed in federal district court prior to filing her bankruptcy case. She eventually reopened her case and disclosed the lawsuit. The chapter 7 trustee filed an application to employ his law firm, which was granted, and quickly settled the case. Jones sought compensation for representing debtor in her employment discrimination case. Since he did not pursue any argument pursuant to § 327(e), the district court focused solely on § 327(a) and found that Jones’s claim failed because the trustee did not request or consent to his employment. Likewise, Jones’s attempt to obtain an administrative expense priority failed because § 330(a)(1) does not authorize compensation to attorneys not employed under § 327(a).

Judge: Springmann

Attorney for Debtor: Richard Busse

Attorney for Trustee: Kenneth Manning

Attorney for Appellant: Stuart Jones

Author: Robert K. Imperial

2016-09-14-in-re-romano

Roach v. Barcus (In re Bolen)

(N.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2015)

The district court denies the request to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court. The defendants requested a jury trial in the bankruptcy court and then received an adverse ruling on their motion to dismiss. Then the defendants requested that the reference be withdrawn. The court denies the request based on the request being untimely and to discourage the apparent forum shopping. A motion to withdraw the reference should be made at the time of the jury demand. Opinion below.

2015-02-18 – roach v barcus

Author: Matt Lindblom