Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Last time this happened to me (more than 2 years ago), I did not have to schedule a hearing. As I recall, the clerk told me that if the judge wanted to see me, then they would schedule a hearing.
>
> Scream or die.
>
>
>
> Kirk Brennan
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 3:27 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Motion to reopen for failure to file Debtor Education
> certificate
>
>
>
>
>
> Is "scream or die" Notice sufficient for a motion to reopen? Or must it be
> set for hearing?
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Kirk Brennan
> wrote:
>
> Do you all normally attach a Memo of Points and Authorities to the Form
> Motion to Reopen (Form 5010-1.1M) or is the Form Motion usually sufficient
> in a run of the mill case where Debtor didn't do what they were supposed to?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Stella Havkin
> wrote:
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> Kirk Brennan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:53 AM
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Motion to reopen for failure to file Debtor Education
> certificate
>
>
>
>
>
> Does the Motion to Reopen need to be served on all creditors?
>
>
> LBR 5010-1 doesn't seem to require it.
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grennier Law wrote:
>
>
>
> Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases.
>
>
>
> Michael Grennier
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition certificate
> routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable neglect or
> some such?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and
> its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client
> or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Grennier Law, PC
>
> 5851 Thille Street, Suite 103
>
> Ventura, CA 93003
>
> (805) 643-3900
>
> (805) 830-0467 - Fax
> grennierlaw.com
>
> #1 Bankruptcy Filing Attorney in Ventura Co
>
>
>
> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only
> for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at
> (805) 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
> at: grennierlaw@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and
> its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client
> or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and
> its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client
> or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please
> notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and
> its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client
> or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Scream or die.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Use Local Form 5010-1.1. There is a motion and an order. (I believe these
forms are mandatory). They are part of my Best Case docs.
Desiree Causey, Esq.
Law Office of Desiree Causey
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
714-375-6663
714-908-7646 (fax)
Any tax advice contained in the body of this e-mail (and any attachments
thereto) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the
recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are
protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC
2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named
above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify
the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is
strictly prohibited.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Is "scream or die" Notice sufficient for a motion to reopen? Or must it be
set for hearing?
Thanks,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> Do you all normally attach a Memo of Points and Authorities to the Form
> Motion to Reopen (Form 5010-1.1M) or is the Form Motion usually sufficient
> in a run of the mill case where Debtor didn't do what they were supposed to?
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Stella Havkin wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> No.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Kirk Brennan
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:53 AM
>>
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Motion to reopen for failure to file Debtor
>> Education certificate****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Does the Motion to Reopen need to be served on all creditors?
>>
>> LBR 5010-1 doesn't seem to require it.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grennier Law
>> wrote:****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Michael Grennier****
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan
>> wrote:****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition
>> certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable
>> neglect or some such?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
>> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
>> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
>> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
>> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
>> message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
>> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
>> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
>> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
>> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
>> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>>
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> -- ****
>>
>> *Grennier Law, PC*****
>>
>> *5851 Thille Street, Suite 103*****
>>
>> *Ventura, CA 93003*****
>>
>> (805) 643-3900****
>>
>> (805) 830-0467 - Fax
>> grennierlaw.com****
>>
>> *#1 Bankruptcy Filing Attorney in Ventura Co*****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended
>> only for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the
>> intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for
>> delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>> dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805)
>> 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
>> at: grennierlaw@gmail.com****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
>> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
>> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
>> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
>> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
>> message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
>> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
>> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
>> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
>> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
>> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Is "scream or die" Notice sufficient for a motion to reopen? Or must it be set for hearing?Thanks,On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you all normally attach a Memo of Points and Authorities to the Form Motion to Reopen (Form 5010-1.1M) or is the Form Motion usually sufficient in a run of the mill case where Debtor didn't do what they were supposed to?
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Stella Havkin <
No.
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Brennan
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:53 AMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Motion to reopen for failure to file Debtor Education certificate
Does the Motion to Reopen need to be served on all creditors?LBR 5010-1 doesn't seem to require it.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grennier Law <grennierlaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases.
Michael GrennierOn Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable neglect or some such?
Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
-- Grennier Law, PC
5851 Thille Street, Suite 103Ventura, CA 93003(805) 643-3900
(805) 830-0467 - Faxgrennierlaw.com
#1 Bankruptcy FilingAttorney in Ventura CoThis e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805) 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
at: grennierlaw@gmail.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Do you all normally attach a Memo of Points and Authorities to the Form
Motion to Reopen (Form 5010-1.1M) or is the Form Motion usually sufficient
in a run of the mill case where Debtor didn't do what they were supposed to?
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Stella Havkin wrote:
> **
>
>
> No.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Kirk Brennan
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:53 AM
>
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Motion to reopen for failure to file Debtor
> Education certificate****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Does the Motion to Reopen need to be served on all creditors?
>
> LBR 5010-1 doesn't seem to require it.
>
> ****
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grennier Law
> wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases. ****
>
> ****
>
> Michael Grennier****
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan
> wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition
> certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable
> neglect or some such?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> *Grennier Law, PC*****
>
> *5851 Thille Street, Suite 103*****
>
> *Ventura, CA 93003*****
>
> (805) 643-3900****
>
> (805) 830-0467 - Fax
> grennierlaw.com****
>
> *#1 Bankruptcy Filing Attorney in Ventura Co*****
>
> ** **
>
> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only
> for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805)
> 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
> at: grennierlaw@gmail.com****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Do you all normally attach a Memo of Points and Authorities to the Form Motion to Reopen (Form 5010-1.1M) or is the Form Motion usually sufficient in a run of the mill case where Debtor didn't do what they were supposed to?
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Stella Havkin <
No.
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Brennan
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:53 AMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Motion to reopen for failure to file Debtor Education certificate
Does the Motion to Reopen need to be served on all creditors?LBR 5010-1 doesn't seem to require it.
grennierlaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases.
Michael GrennierOn Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable neglect or some such?
Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
-- Grennier Law, PC
5851 Thille Street, Suite 103Ventura, CA 93003(805) 643-3900
(805) 830-0467 - Faxgrennierlaw.com
#1 Bankruptcy FilingAttorney in Ventura CoThis e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805) 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
at: grennierlaw@gmail.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

No.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Does the Motion to Reopen need to be served on all creditors?
LBR 5010-1 doesn't seem to require it.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grennier Law wrote:
> **
>
>
> Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases.
>
> Michael Grennier
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition
>> certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable
>> neglect or some such?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
>> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
>> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
>> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
>> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
>> message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
>> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
>> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
>> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
>> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
>> letters containing the signature of a director.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Grennier Law, PC*
> *5851 Thille Street, Suite 103*
> *Ventura, CA 93003*
> (805) 643-3900
> (805) 830-0467 - Fax
> grennierlaw.com
> *
> *
> *#1 Bankruptcy Filing Attorney in Ventura Co*
>
>
> This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only
> for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (805)
> 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
> at: grennierlaw@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Does the Motion to Reopen need to be served on all creditors?LBR 5010-1 doesn't seem to require it.On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grennier Law <grennierlaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases. Michael Grennier<kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable neglect or some such?Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
-- Grennier Law, PC
5851 Thille Street, Suite 103
Ventura, CA 93003
(805) 643-3900
(805) 830-0467 - Faxgrennierlaw.com#1 Bankruptcy FilingAttorney in Ventura Co
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intendedonly for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible
for delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us
by telephone at (805) 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
at: grennierlaw@gmail.com
-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Routinely granted in Riv with the standard disclaimer for Judge
Johnson.
Thank you,
Nancy B. Clark
Attorney at Law
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791-1600
Tel: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644
www.blclaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases.
Michael Grennier
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> **
>
>
> Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition
> certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable
> neglect or some such?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
*Grennier Law, PC*
*5851 Thille Street, Suite 103*
*Ventura, CA 93003*
(805) 643-3900
(805) 830-0467 - Fax
grennierlaw.com
*
*
*#1 Bankruptcy Filing Attorney in Ventura Co*
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only
for the use of the Individual (s) named above. If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering this to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at
(805) 643-3900 or notify us by e-mail
at: grennierlaw@gmail.com
Same for Ventura and Santa Barbara cases. Michael GrennierOn Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

In OC they at routinely granted without so much as a hearing.
Desiree Causey
714-375-6663
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 18, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable neglect or some such?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
In OC they at routinely granted without so much as a hearing. Desiree Causey714-375-6663Sent from my iPhoneOn Sep 18, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:

Are Motions to Reopen Case for failure to file the postpetition certificate routinely granted? Or do judges require a showing of excusable neglect or some such?Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.