.jpg)
question regarding motion for violation of automatic
charset="windows-1251"
no waiting period required under 362 to get problem stopped, but judges are
unlikely to award sanctions without repeated warnings. Atty fees are much
easier than punitive damages (no surprise).
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.
Jacob Chang
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 12:42 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] question regarding motion for violation of automatic
stay in central district
Thank you, Steven.
Whether by 9011 or by 362(k), the root of my question lies in whether a
"safe harbor" period via service needs to be given before the filing of a
motion. 9011 absolutely requires the 21 days safe harbor period. But
362(k) appears to lack such a requirement. Nevertheless, the requirement
that the violation be "willful" appears to require the debtor to give actual
notice of the violation and an opportunity to fix, per In re Abrams. While
I realize that best practice probably requires me to give additional actual
notice even under 362(k), if it is fairly arguable that violating creditor
at least should have known about the petition prior to violating automatic
stay, then would I be generally successful in filing a 362(k) motion in
central district, los angeles? By success, I mean recovery of attorney's
fees and possibly punitive damages.
Warm regards,
Jacob D. Chang, Esq.
Please kindly consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Note: This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by
certain individuals. It may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected,
or if you suspect you have received this in error, please notify me by
replying and then delete both the message and reply. Thank you.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Steven B. Lever
wrote:
Look at 11 U.S.C. 362(k)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="windows-1251"
Can also file an adversary - some judges prefer this.
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.
Steven B. Lever
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 12:09 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] question regarding motion for violation of automatic
stay in central district
Look at 11 U.S.C. 362(k)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thank you, Steven.
Whether by 9011 or by 362(k), the root of my question lies in whether a
"safe harbor" period via service needs to be given before the filing of a
motion. 9011 absolutely requires the 21 days safe harbor period. But
362(k) appears to lack such a requirement. Nevertheless, the requirement
that the violation be "willful" appears to require the debtor to give actual
notice of the violation and an opportunity to fix, per In re Abrams. While
I realize that best practice probably requires me to give additional actual
notice even under 362(k), if it is fairly arguable that violating creditor
at least should have known about the petition prior to violating automatic
stay, then would I be generally successful in filing a 362(k) motion in
central district, los angeles? By success, I mean recovery of attorney's
fees and possibly punitive damages.
Warm regards,
Jacob D. Chang, Esq.
Please kindly consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Note: This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by
certain individuals. It may contain information that is attorney-client
privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected,
or if you suspect you have received this in error, please notify me by
replying and then delete both the message and reply. Thank you.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Steven B. Lever wrote:
>
>
> Look at 11 U.S.C. 362(k)
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Jacob Chang
> *Sent:* Monday, October 25, 2010 12:00 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] question regarding motion for violation of automatic
> stay in central district
>
>
>
>
>
> In central district, is the 9011 procedure the only available means of
> bringing about a motion for violation of automatic stay?
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Jacob D. Chang, Esq.
>
> Please kindly consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
> Note: This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by
> certain individuals. It may contain information that is attorney-client
> privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected,
> or if you suspect you have received this in error, please notify me by
> replying and then delete both the message and reply. Thank you.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3198 - Release Date: 10/24/10
> 23:34:00
>
>
>
Thank you, Steven. Whether by 9011 or by 362(k), the root of my question lies in whether a "safe harbor" period via service needs to be given before the filing of a motion. 9011 absolutely requires the 21 days safe harbor period. But 362(k) appears to lack such a requirement. Nevertheless, the requirement that the violation be "willful" appears to require the debtor to give actual notice of the violation and an opportunity to fix, per In re Abrams. While I realize that best practice probably requires me to give additional actual notice even under 362(k), if it is fairly arguable that violating creditor at least should have known about the petition prior to violating automatic stay, then would I be generally successful in filing a 362(k) motion in central district, los angeles? By success, I mean recovery of attorney's fees and possibly punitive damages.
Warm regards,Jacob D. Chang, Esq.Please kindly consider the environment before printing this e-mail.Note: This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain individuals. It may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect you have received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete both the message and reply. Thank you.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Steven B. Lever <sblever@leverlaw.com> wrote:
Look at 11 U.S.C. 362(k)
From:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jacob
Chang
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 12:00 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] question regarding motion for violation of automatic
stay in central district
In central district, is the 9011 procedure the only
available means of bringing about a motion for violation of automatic stay?
Warm regards,
Jacob D. Chang, Esq.
Please kindly consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Note: This electronic mail is intended to be received and read only by certain
individuals. It may contain information that is attorney-client privileged or
protected from disclosure by law. If it has been misdirected, or if you suspect
you have received this in error, please notify me by replying and then delete
both the message and reply. Thank you.
No virus
found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3198 - Release Date: 10/24/10
23:34:00
The post was migrated from Yahoo.