.jpg)
OSC re Contempt -- Violation of Discharge Injunction=
The case need not be reopened. I circulated the case to this list before -
In re Menk.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:54 AM, mitnicklaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Nick. I am curious as to whether a motion to reopen is
> necessary. The cases seems to indicate that none is necessary because the
> court is enforcing its order as a part of "arising under" jurisdiction.
>
> Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
> 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
> Torrance, California 90503
> Telephone: (310) 792-5864
> Facsimile: (310) 347-4353
> Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com, MitnickLaw@gmail.com
>
> Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any
> virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it
> is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
> that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for
> any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
>
> * The information contained in this email message and any attached files
> may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are
> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is
> strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message
> in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email
> message you received and all of the attached files.*
>
> ****NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL****
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
> To: cdcbaa
> Cc: ngebelt
> Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 10:35 pm
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] OSC re Contempt -- Violation of Discharge Injunction
> [2 Attachments]
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Nicholas
> Gebelt included below]
> Dear Eric,
>
> Most of mine involve stay violations rather than discharge violations.
> The most recent case involving a discharge violation was 8:13-bk-15229-MW.
> That case had several creditors violating both the stay and the discharge
> injunction. I have attached Word versions of the motion to reopen to go
> after two of the creditors, and the subsequent OSC motion against one of
> the creditors (the OSC motion against the other creditor is very similar).
> There was a third creditor that got its own motion to reopen, but it
> settled before I filed the corresponding OSC motion.
>
> Let me know how you do.
>
> All the best,
>
> Nick
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
> Attorney at Law
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> Commissioner, California State Bars Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
> 15150 Hornell Street
> Whittier, CA 90604
> Phone: 562.777.9159
> FAX: 562.946.1365
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com;
> ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
> Blog:
> www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* We are a debt relief
> agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
> info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended 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 herein.
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:01 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] OSC re Contempt -- Violation of Discharge Injunction
>
>
> Would someone please direct me to a recent case in which he or she
> obtained an OSC as to why a creditor should not be held in contempt for
> violating the discharge injunction. Any assistance would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Eric
> Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
> 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
> Torrance, California 90503
> Telephone: (310) 792-5864
> Facsimile: (310) 347-4353
> Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com, MitnickLaw@gmail.com
>
>
> Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any
> virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it
> is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure
> that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for
> any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
>
> * The information contained in this email message and any attached files
> may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are
> not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is
> strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message
> in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email
> message you received and all of the attached files.*
>
> ****NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL****
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
The case need not be reopened. I circulated the case to this list before - In re Menk.ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
To: cdcbaa <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: ngebelt <ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 10:35 pm
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] OSC re Contempt -- Violation of Discharge Injunction [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Nicholas Gebelt included below]
Dear Eric,
Most of mine involve stay violations rather than discharge violations. The most recent case involving a discharge violation was 8:13-bk-15229-MW. had several creditors violating both the stay and the discharge injunction. I have attached Word versions of the motion to reopen to go after two of the creditors, and the subsequent OSC motion against one of the creditors (the OSC motion against the other
creditor is very similar). There was a third creditor that got its own motion to reopen, but it settled before I filed the corresponding OSC motion.
Let me know how you do.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Commissioner, California State Bars Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thank you Nick. I am curious as to whether a motion to reopen is necessary. The cases seems to indicate that none is necessary because the court is enforcing its order as a part of "arising under" jurisdiction.
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
Telephone: (310) 792-5864
Facsimile: (310) 347-4353
Email: MitnickLaw@aol.com, MitnickLaw@gmail.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
***NOTICE OF EX PARTE HEARINGS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BY EMAIL***
m>
To: cdcbaa
Cc: ngebelt
Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 10:35 pm
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] OSC re Contempt -- Violation of Discharge Injunction [2 Attachments]
[Attachment(s) from Nicholas Gebelt included below]
Dear Eric,
Most of mine involve stay violations rather than discharge violations. The most recent case involving a discharge violation was 8:13-bk-15229-MW. That case had several creditors violating both the stay and the discharge injunction. I have attached Word versions of the motion to reopen to go after two of the creditors, and the subsequent OSC motion against one of the creditors (the OSC motion against the other creditor is very similar). There was a third creditor that got its own motion to reopen, but it settled before I filed the corresponding OSC motion.
Let me know how you do.
All the best,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney at Law
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
Commissioner, California State Bars Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com;ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mailinfo@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.