.jpg)
FW: Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
Other than venting, there is little purpose being served here. She is not
up for reappointment.
David A. Tilem
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
* Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
Specialization.
Giovanni Orantes
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 11:09 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: FW: [cdcbaa] Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
If a forum of attorneys who represent consumers is not the correct forum to
discuss a judge whose capricious positions (yes, capricious, just because
you consistently take the same unjustified position does not keep such
position from being capricious) harm consumers, I don't know what would be
the appropriate forum. Perhaps a "pol" forum like NACBA's should be
started. However, it is the attorneys who appear in front of a judge who
can affect their reappointment and are duty-bound to do so if the judge
harms or has harmed the attorney's clients in the past. It is hard to think
of another forum that would be more appropriate than this one.
Although I may point to many other instances, one particular situation
prompted my question about her reapp:
a client was referred to me who was previously represented by counsel in two
chapter 13 cases. Both cases were dismissed. The first one because counsel
did not file the Chapter 13 plan on time. The second one was dismissed,
according to what counsel told to the client, because the client did not
make the mortgage payments and plan payments on time. However, that was not
accurate as the client showed me receipts for dated cashier's checks for
plan payments and mortgage payments for all plan payments and mortgage
payments that came due during the second case. A review of the docket
showed, however, that the attorney filed a motion to strip a second lien in
Judge Carroll's case instead of timely commencing an adversary proceeding.
In my view, that would be enough for Judge Carroll to dismiss the case and,
since I know her policies, it would be the attorney's problem for not
inquiring whether the judge required an adversary proceeding or a motion to
strip a second lien. The attorney's lack of experience with Chapter 13
cases was noticed by the Chapter 13 trustee's attorney during the Section
341(a) meeting when he asked him straight out if he had experience and the
attorney answered that "he had filed 77 Chapter 7 cases". After the second
case was dismissed, the attorney refunded to the client all monies he had
paid.
The client came to see me shortly after his previous counsel refunded the
monies. I filed an application for an OST for a motion to vacate the
dismissal, but Judge Zurzolo denied it commenting that nothing prevented the
client from re-filing. So, I re-filed the case and drew Judge Carroll.
Immediately, we filed an application for an OST to impose the automatic stay
at least one day prior to the trustee sale since the stay is effective only
after the order is entered. Judge Carroll denied the OST - she didn't even
enter the order for many days even though we called and pled to her staff
before the truste sale. In the meantime, the Sale Trustee went ahead and
sold the property because its attorneys knew that the stay was not in place
in the third case.
At this point, I've gone ahead and noticed the motion to vacate the
dismissal for hearing on regular notice in front of Judge Zurzolo (the
second case). If he vacates the dismissal, the sale should be set aside
because the stay would render it void (or, at the least, voidable). I'm
left with the dilemma of whether I need to dismiss the third case before the
hearing though.
In any event, I think such behavior should not be condoned and those who
have the knowledge and tools to do something about it should do it. I think
that means us. However, none of this may matter if she won't seek
reappointment.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:55 PM, blc subscriptions wrote:
I second the motion
M. Erik Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.blclaw.com
Office: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I second the motion
M. Erik Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.blclaw.com
Office: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
The post was migrated from Yahoo.