Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:08 am
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
>
>
>
> *From:* Erik Clark
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:52 PM
> *To:* blc subscriptions
> *Subject:* FW: [cdcbaa] Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com on behalf of James T. King[
> SMTP:KING@KINGOBK.COM ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:51:40 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* RE: [cdcbaa] Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
> *Auto forwarded by a Rule*
>
>
>
>
> Can we please put a stop to this bashing? This is totally inappropriate
> for this list serve. The same would be true of trustees.
>
>
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Giovanni Orantes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:39 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
>
>
>
>
>
> You're entitled to your opinion even if you're wrong. That "some" people
> have been living beyond their means is irrelevant for those who have lost
> their jobs in this economic depression and surprisingly found themselves
> unable to afford the mortgages they once were able to pay. I know there
> have been worse judges in the past and Santa Barbara is ruled by such a
> judge, but I choose to be optimistic and hope we get a reasonable one as
> replacement.
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:26 PM, warren brown wrote:
>
>
>
> Some clients don't have the money because they have been living beyond
> their means for too long. The word "capricious" denotes whimsy or
> unpredictability. The judge to whom you refer has neither of those
> characteristics. She is quite predictable. She simply has a much higher
> standard of personal responsibility than most. It is quite inconvenient at
> times, but there have been a couple over the years who were much worse.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>
> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 15:54:46 -0700
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
>
>
>
> Hey, I can deal with individual judges, but some clients don't have the
> money to do so. Since you can affect the reapp of a judge, part of being a
> lawyer consists of chiming in with comments when a judge adversely impacts
> too many people capriciously.
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:27 PM, warren brown wrote:
>
>
>
> How long will you be a lawyer? Learn to deal with individual judges and
> stop whining
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 10:13:18 -0700
>
>
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Judge Ellen Carroll's ReApp
>
>
>
> When is Judge Carroll up for reapp? She is hurting many consumers with her
> idiosyncratic policies.
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: 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 at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
> inbox. See how.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: 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 at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your
> inbox. Learn more.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: 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 at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Phone: (888) 619-8222 x101
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: 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 at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with 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.
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 <eclark@blclaw.com> wrote:
I second the motion
M. Erik Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
The post was migrated from Yahoo.