Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Debtor and her counsel were separately served with a copy of the Notice ofMotion and Motion pursuant to LBR 4001-1(c)(1)(A), which clearly requiressuch service. It does not speak to telephonic notice. LBR 9075-1(6)
speaks to Telephonic Notice for Emergency Motions but it does not make specific
reference requiring notice to the debtor in addition to debtor's counsel as
do LBR's 4001-(c)(1)(A) and 9013-1(d)(1). It just says provide telephonicnotice to the "parties" to whom notice of the motion is required. To me
there is a huge difference between sending a copy of a notice of motion and
motion that goes to all interested parties via a delivery service versus
directly communicating via telephone with a represented party about a motion
in the case. I am very uncomfortable with the concept of calling a
represented debtor directly to provide notice unless I have permission fromdebtor's counsel in compliance with Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100. As
communications with a represented party is such a big ethical taboo I havenever interpreted LBR 9075-1(6) to require telephonic notice to both counsel
representing the debtor and to the debtor. Even if LBR 9075-1(6)
specifically required telephonic notice to a represented debtor the argument that it
would fall under the Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100(C)(3) exception of"Communications otherwise authorized by law" seems dubious to me. Its not
a law, it's a local rule of one particular court.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENTOF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THISMESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 7/7/2014 11:34:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:
LBR 4001-1(c)(1)(A) requires service on the Debtor in addition to counsel.(c)(1)(B)(i) has the same requirements if it's not residential so either
way the guy you're kicking out must be told.
This probably falls under the Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100(C)(3)
exception to communications.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:01 PM, _jesseelaw@aol.com_
(mailto:jesseelaw@aol.com) [cdcbaa]
wrote:
No. Judge Houle's self calendaring instructions allow for residential UDmotions to be set for hearing on shortened without order. His instructions
"Motions calendared on shortened time in accordance with this procedure
must be filed with the Court and served on all parties entitled to receivenotice of the motion so that the moving papers and notice of hearing are
received not later than 5 court days prior to the date of the hearing. Telephonic notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the motion must
also be given to all parties entitled to receive notice not later than 5
court days prior to the hearing"
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
_(805) 497-5868_ (tel:(805)%20497-5868) (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
In a message dated 7/7/2014 8:56:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com) writes:
Did the order shortening time require telephonic notice to the Debtor?
Wesley H. Avery
Wesley H. Avery, Esq.
Bankruptcy Trustee
_wavery@rpmlaw.com_ (mailto:wavery@rpmlaw.com)
28005 Smyth Drive, Ste. 117
Valencia, CA 91355-4023
_(661) 295-4674_ (tel:(661)%20295-4674) (office)
_(661) 430-5467_ (tel:(661)%20430-5467) (fax)
_(661) 618-7376_ (tel:(661)%20618-7376) (cell)
Certified Specialist
Bankruptcy Law
State Bar of California
Board Certified
Business Bankruptcy Law
American Board of Certification
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail
transmission is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above.
This e-mail transmission , and any documents, files, previous e-mail
transmissions or other information attached to it, may contain confidential
information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of
this e-mail transmission, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that anydisclosure, dissemination, copying, or other use of this transmission or any of the
information contained in or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If youhave received this e-mail transmission in error, please immediately notifyus by return e-mail transmission or by telephone at _(661) 618-7376_
(tel:(661)%20618-7376) , and destroy the original e-mail transmission and its
attachments without reading it or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
[mailto:_cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com) ]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:42 PM
To: _cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com)
Subject: [cdcbaa] Telephonic notice to Represented Debtor of hearing on
shortened notice
I have a UD relief from stay hearing tomorrow morning being heard on
shortened 5 court day notice. Judge Houles tentative just posted this evening
is to continue for inadequate telephonic notice to the REPRESENTED debtorherself. I gave debtors counsel proper telephonic notice and everybody
received their copy of the notice of motion and motion at least 5 court days
prior to the hearing. Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100 prohibits me from
calling the represented debtor without permission of her counsel. I neverhave interpreted the local rules to require separate telephonic notice toreprented debtors in these situations. In such situations is creditorcounsel really required to call represented debtors counsel and ask for their
clients phone number (represented clients numbers are not on the
petition like they are for pro se debtors) and then ask if we can call the debtor
directly to communicate notice of the hearing and explain the motion? Isure would not want creditor's counsel talking to my debtor clients
directly on the phone without my participation. I know we have limited scope of
appearance and that is why the debtor receives a copy of the notice of
motion and motion, but do local rules really require such separate telephonic
communication with a represented Debtor?
Mark Jessee
_(805) 497-5868_ (tel:(805)%20497-5868)
Debtor and her counsel were separately served with a copy of the
Notice of Motion and Motion pursuant to LBR 4001-1(c)(1)(A), which clearlyrequires such service. It does not speak to telephonic notice.
LBR 9075-1(6) speaks to Telephonic Notice for Emergency Motions but it
does not make specific reference requiring notice to the debtor in addition
to debtor's counsel as do LBR's 4001-(c)(1)(A) and 9013-1(d)(1).
It just says provide telephonic notice to the "parties" to whom notice of the
motion is required. To me there is a huge difference
between sending a copy of a notice of motion and motion that goes to
all interested parties via a delivery service versus directly
communicating via telephone with a represented party about a motion in the
case. I am very uncomfortable with the concept of calling a
represented debtor directly to provide notice unless I have permission from
debtor's counsel in compliance with Rule of Professional Conduct
2-100. As communications with a represented party is such a
big ethical taboo I have never interpreted LBR 9075-1(6) to require
telephonic notice to both counsel representing the debtor and to the
debtor. Even if LBR 9075-1(6) specifically required telephonic
notice to a represented debtor the argument that it would fall under
the Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100(C)(3) exception of "Communications
otherwise authorized by law" seems dubious to me. Its not a law,
it's a local rule of one particular court.

Mark T.
JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W.Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED
TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE
THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In a message dated 7/7/2014 11:34:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:



LBR 4001-1(c)(1)(A) requires service on the Debtor in
addition to counsel. (c)(1)(B)(i) has the same requirements if it's not
residential so either way the guy you're kicking out must be told.

This probably falls under the Rule of Professional Conduct
2-100(C)(3) exception to communications.


Sincerely,

Michael Avanesian

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:01 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


No. Judge Houle's self calendaring instructions allow for
residential UD motions to be set for hearing on shortened without
order. His instructions "Motions calendared on shortened time in
accordance with this procedure must be filed with the Court and served on
all parties entitled to receive notice of the motion so that the moving papers and notice of hearing are received not later than 5
court days prior to the date of the hearing. Telephonic notice
of the date, time and place of the hearing on the motion must also be given
to all parties entitled to receive notice not later than 5 court days
prior to the hearing"

Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T.
Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite
200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805)
497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)


In a message dated 7/7/2014 8:56:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com writes:




Did the order
shortening time require telephonic notice to the
Debtor?


Wesley H.
AveryWesley H. Avery, Esq.
Bankruptcy Trustee
wavery@rpmlaw.com 28005 Smyth Drive, Ste. 117
Valencia, CA 91355-4023 (661)
295-4674 (office) (661) 430-5467 (fax)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.