.jpg)
Cal CD: Serving a bank that defaulted
That only applies to the order, not necessarily the declaration.
Sent from my iPhone 4s
On Nov 26, 2011, at 10:07 PM, Alik Segal wrote:
>
>
> I think the Court Manual resolves this:
>
> 4-2. Order Preparation [LBR 9021-1 and 9004-1]
>
> (b)(3)(C)(i)
>
> Proposed Order on Unopposed Motions. Pursuant to LBR 9021-
> 1(b)(4), there is no obligation to serve a proposed form or order on
> any person, entity, or attorney who did not file an opposition to the
> moving paper(s). This includes a case trustee or the United States
> Trustee.
>
> (emphasis added)
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Law Offices of Jonathan Leventhal wrote:
>
> I always (perhaps mistakenly) serve everyone again.
>
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 9:03 AM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
>
>>
>> Our local rules are not clear on this. LBR 9013-1(o)(3)(A) states:
>>
>> "File Declaration of Service and Non-response. Promptly file a declaration
>> attesting that no timely response and request for hearing was served upon
>> the moving party. A copy of the motion, notice, and proof of service of the
>> notice and motion must be attached as exhibits to the declaration. No
>> service is required prior to filing the declaration." (Emphasis added)
>>
>> I have no idea what this means. You don't have to serve the declaration prior to filing it. OK. So whom do you serve it on when you do file? The parties to the Motion have (presumably) already been served with the notice and the motion. It would make no sense, either legally or from a save-the-trees perspective, to serve them again with the Motion and exhibits (which must be attached to the Declaration of Non-Response). On the other hand, this is akin to taking a default judgment against someone, and the Request for Entry of Default, etc. must be served on all defendants/parties, so why would this be different?
>>
>> In the olden days (and I think Dennis and some of the others can help on this), when this procedure was first introduced as LBR 111(7) (if I recall correctly) for limited motions, the rule stated specifically that the notice of non-opposition Declaration must be served on the US Trustee ONLY. Somehow, unless I'm missing it, this got removed from the current local rules. So one could conclude that by its omission the court intended more people to be served. Or, one could conclude that nobody needs to be served. I think it depends on who is doing the concluding.
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>
>> On 11/26/2011 8:07 AM, Armen Shaghzo wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a question. Like many of us, I had to sit through Judge Bauer's Calendar in Riverside, on almost every case she required the debtor to serve everything and everyone with all documentation. Her position was since these are 13s, she did not want the Banks to argue that they did not receive sufficient notice. How would you respond to this argument? Is there case law to support not serving the bank?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Armen
>>> Sent via BlackBerry
>>> Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:06:04 -0500
>>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Cal CD: Serving a bank that defaulted
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
>>> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
>>> 818-347-5800
>>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:34 AM, "Alik Segal" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Group,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I filed and served a motion to avoid a judicial lien (Notice of Motion and Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) (Real Property)). The respondent was a bank so I used certified mail. Now I am preparing "DECLARATION RE: ENTRY OF ORDER WITHOUT HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE 9013-1(o)." I will need to serve it on the bank.
>>>>
>>>> Since the bank did not respond, should I be serving the bank again using certified mail?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alik Segal
>>>> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
>>>> 310-362-6157
>>>> California Central District
>>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> California Central District
>
>
>
That only applies to the order, not necessarily the declaration. Sent from my iPhone 4sOn Nov 26, 2011, at 10:07 PM, Alik Segal <listserv.inbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I think the Court Manual resolves this:
4-2. Order Preparation [LBR 9021-1 and 9004-1]
(b)(3)(C)(i)
Proposed Order on Unopposed Motions. Pursuant to LBR 9021-
1(b)(4), *there is no obligation to serve a proposed form or order on*
*any person, entity, or attorney who did not file an opposition to the*
*moving paper(s).* This includes a case trustee or the United States
Trustee.
(emphasis added)
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Law Offices of Jonathan Leventhal wrote:
> **
>
>
> I always (perhaps mistakenly) serve everyone again.
>
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 9:03 AM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
>
>
>
> Our local rules are not clear on this. LBR 9013-1(o)(3)(A) states:
>
> "*File Declaration of Service and Non-response*. Promptly file a
> declaration
> attesting that no timely response and request for hearing was served upon
> the moving party. A copy of the motion, notice, and proof of service of the
> notice and motion must be attached as exhibits to the declaration. *No
> service is required prior to filing the declaration*." (Emphasis added)
>
> I have no idea what this means. You don't have to serve the declaration
> prior to filing it. OK. So whom do you serve it on when you *do*file? The parties to the Motion have (presumably) already been served
> with the notice and the motion. It would make no sense, either legally or
> from a save-the-trees perspective, to serve them again with the Motion and
> exhibits (which must be attached to the Declaration of Non-Response). On
> the other hand, this is akin to taking a default judgment against someone,
> and the Request for Entry of Default, etc. must be served on all
> defendants/parties, so why would this be different?
>
> In the olden days (and I think Dennis and some of the others can help on
> this), when this procedure was first introduced as LBR 111(7) (if I recall
> correctly) for limited motions, the rule stated specifically that the
> notice of non-opposition Declaration must be served on the US Trustee
> ONLY. Somehow, unless I'm missing it, this got removed from the current
> local rules. So one could conclude that by its omission the court intended
> more people to be served. Or, one could conclude that nobody needs to be
> served. I think it depends on who is doing the concluding.
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
> On 11/26/2011 8:07 AM, Armen Shaghzo wrote:
>
> I have a question. Like many of us, I had to sit through Judge Bauer's
> Calendar in Riverside, on almost every case she required the debtor to
> serve everything and everyone with all documentation. Her position was
> since these are 13s, she did not want the Banks to argue that they did not
> receive sufficient notice. How would you respond to this argument? Is there
> case law to support not serving the bank?
>
> Thank you,
> Armen
> Sent via BlackBerry
> ------------------------------
> *Sender: * cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Date: *Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:06:04 -0500
> *To: *cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *ReplyTo: * cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject: *Re: [cdcbaa] Cal CD: Serving a bank that defaulted
>
>
> Yes
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:34 AM, "Alik Segal"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Group,
>
> I filed and served a motion to avoid a judicial lien (Notice of Motion
> and Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) (Real Property)). The
> respondent was a bank so I used certified mail. Now I am preparing
> "DECLARATION RE: ENTRY OF ORDER WITHOUT HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL
> BANKRUPTCY RULE 9013-1(o)." I will need to serve it on the bank.
>
> Since the bank did not respond, should I be serving the bank again using
> certified mail?
>
> --
> Alik Segal
> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
> 310-362-6157
> California Central District
>
>
>
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
I think the Court Manual resolves this:4-2. Order Preparation [LBR 9021-1 and 9004-1](b)(3)(C)(i)Proposed Order on Unopposed Motions. Pursuant to LBR 9021-
1(b)(4), there is no obligation to serve a proposed form or order onany person, entity, or attorney who did not file an opposition to themoving paper(s). This includes a case trustee or the United States
Trustee.(emphasis added)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Depends on the judge. Zurzolo requires service of everything. We need to post some local local rule.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2011, at 8:07 AM, "Armen Shaghzo" wrote:
> I have a question. Like many of us, I had to sit through Judge Bauer's Calendar in Riverside, on almost every case she required the debtor to serve everything and everyone with all documentation. Her position was since these are 13s, she did not want the Banks to argue that they did not receive sufficient notice. How would you respond to this argument? Is there case law to support not serving the bank?
>
> Thank you,
> Armen
>
> Sent via BlackBerry
> Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:06:04 -0500
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Cal CD: Serving a bank that defaulted
>
>
> Yes
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:34 AM, "Alik Segal" wrote:
>
>>
>> Group,
>>
>>
>> I filed and served a motion to avoid a judicial lien (Notice of Motion and Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) (Real Property)). The respondent was a bank so I used certified mail. Now I am preparing "DECLARATION RE: ENTRY OF ORDER WITHOUT HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE 9013-1(o)." I will need to serve it on the bank.
>>
>> Since the bank did not respond, should I be serving the bank again using certified mail?
>>
>> --
>> Alik Segal
>> Alik.Segal@gmail.com
>> 310-362-6157
>> California Central District
>
>
Depends on the judge. Zurzolo requires service of everything. We need to post some local local rule. Sent from my iPhoneOn Nov 26, 2011, at 8:07 AM, "Armen Shaghzo" <ashaghzo@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a question. Like many of us, I had to sit through Judge Bauer's Calendar in Riverside, on almost every case she required the debtor to serve everything and everyone with all documentation. Her position was since these are 13s, she did not want the Banks to argue that they did not receive sufficient notice. How would you respond to this argument? Is there case law to support not serving the bank?Thank you,Armen Sent l <law@3yl.com>
Sender: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:06:04 -0500To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com<cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>ReplyTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Cal CD: Serving a bank that defaulted
YesJonathan Leventhal, esq.Leventhal Law Group, P.C.818-347-5800On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:34 AM, "Alik Segal" <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Our local rules are not clear on this. LBR 9013-1(o)(3)(A) states:
"*_File Declaration of Service and Non-response_*. Promptly file a
declaration
attesting that no timely response and request for hearing was served
upon
the moving party. A copy of the motion, notice, and proof of service
of the
notice and motion must be attached as exhibits to the declaration. _No
service is required prior to filing the declaration_." (Emphasis added)
I have no idea what this means. You don't have to serve the
declaration prior to filing it. OK. So whom do you serve it on
when you /do/ file? The parties to the Motion have (presumably)
already been served with the notice and the motion. It would make
no sense, either legally or from a save-the-trees perspective, to
serve them again with the Motion and exhibits (which must be
attached to the Declaration of Non-Response). On the other hand,
this is akin to taking a default judgment against someone, and the
Request for Entry of Default, etc. must be served on all
defendants/parties, so why would this be different?
In the olden days (and I think Dennis and some of the others can
help on this), when this procedure was first introduced as LBR
111(7) (if I recall correctly) for limited motions, the rule stated
specifically that the notice of non-opposition Declaration must be
served on the US Trustee ONLY. Somehow, unless I'm missing it,
this got removed from the current local rules. So one could
conclude that by its omission the court intended more people to be
served. Or, one could conclude that nobody needs to be served. I
think it depends on who is doing the concluding.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
No. Put on the proof of service that no one is required to be served
pursuant to the rule.
Alik Segal
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:34 AM
To: NACBA BK; CDCBAA Listserv
Subject: [cdcbaa] Cal CD: Serving a bank that defaulted
Group,
I filed and served a motion to avoid a judicial lien (Notice of Motion and
Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) (Real Property)). The
respondent was a bank so I used certified mail. Now I am preparing
"DECLARATION RE: ENTRY OF ORDER WITHOUT HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL BANKRUPTCY
RULE 9013-1(o)." I will need to serve it on the bank.
Since the bank did not respond, should I be serving the bank again using
certified mail?
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Group,
I filed and served a motion to avoid a judicial lien (Notice of Motion and
Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) (Real Property)). The
respondent was a bank so I used certified mail. Now I am preparing
"DECLARATION RE: ENTRY OF ORDER WITHOUT HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL
BANKRUPTCY RULE 9013-1(o)." I will need to serve it on the bank.
Since the bank did not respond, should I be serving the bank again using
certified mail?
Alik Segal
Alik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157
California Central District
Group,I filed and served a motion to avoid a judicial lien (Notice of Motion and Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. 522(f) (Real Property)). The respondent was a bank so I used certified mail. ve it on the bank.
Since the bank did not respond, should I be serving the bank again using certified mail?-- Alik SegalAlik.Segal@gmail.com
310-362-6157California Central District
The post was migrated from Yahoo.