Cases for Zip , California Northern District Bankruptcy Court

Ninth Circuit Cases

• Sternberg v. Johnston

9th Cir. 2010 - 595 F.3d 937 - 2010-02-08 - ,

As this opinion does not consider the civil contempt authority of the court, it does not limit the availability of contempt sanctions, including attorney's fees, for violation of the automatic stay, where otherwise appropriate.

• Sternberg v. Johnston

9th Cir. Ariz - 582 F.3d 1114 - 2009-10-22 - ,

Following dictionary definition of "actual damages" ('[a]n amount awarded ...to compensate for a proven injury or loss; damages that repay actual losses.' Blacks Law Dictionary, 416, 8th ed. 2004), the proven injury is the injury resulting from the stay violation itself. Once the violation has ended, any fees the debtor incurs after that point in pursuit of a damage award would not be to compensate for "actual damages" under Sec 362(k)(1).

Other Circuits

• In re Puffer

D.Mass. - 453 B.R. 14 - 2011-07-08 - ,

Chapter 13 plans that only pay the attorneys fees are not proposed in good faith.

• In re Sullivan

D.Mass - 454 B.R. 1 - 2011-06-15 - 13 ,

Fee request of $12,000 reduced to 3,584. Court found that 59 hours was an unreasonable amount of time, whereas 21 hours was a reasonable amount of time to commit to case @ rate of $176 per hour, even though lower court did not compute the math precisely this way.

• In re Aclin

Bankr. W.D. Tex. - No. 06-11730-CAG - 2010-03-11 - ,

Attorney was seeking fees for $12,801 for work that provided only a $7,200 benefit to the estate. The court held that this fee request resulted from bad billing judgment on the attorney's part, and only allowed him to receive the standard fee for the services that he had performed (in aggregate, the fee came to $1,175).

• In re Carpenter

Bankr. S.D.Ohio - No. 08-54330 - 2009-09-26 - 13 ,

Attorney was allowed to collect some fees for doing administrative tasks (preparing bankruptcy petitions himself), but was not allowed to charge his full $200 hourly rate.

• In re D'Amico

Bankr. N.D.N.Y. - No. 05-19217 - 2009-09-14 - 7 ,

Court found that the attorney's $250 hourly rate was reasonable. However, the court reduced the fee by 20% because of deficiencies in the attorney's record keeping. The court explained that, "the reduction, in large part, is the result of the applicant's failure to provide sufficient information to justify the approval of the entire amount requested, and not a reflection on the quality of the services rendered. More specifically, the court was not provided with a clear picture of the individual tasks performed and the time it took to perform them."

• In re Bosco

Bankr. E.D.N.C. - No. 09-02715-8-JRL - 2009-08-25 - ,

Attorney had to disgorge $1,125 in fees. $1,000 of this amount was the amount over the $3000 "no look" amount allowed in that district (that is, the attorney charged $4,000 total). The court ordered the attorney to show cause for this excess fee, the attorney did not comply, and so the court required him to disgorge this amount. Additionally, the $125 amount was an undisclosed fee that the attorney had charged for a meeting he had with his clients.

At the client's request and the court's approval, the attorney withdrew from representation.

• Young v. Repine (In re Repine)

5th Cir. - 536 F.3d 512 - 2008-07-22 - ,

Attorney's fees may be awarded for stay violations by the debtor.

• In re Amato

Bankr.D.N.J. - 366 B.R. 348 - 2007-03-20 - 13 , Above

Debtors argue that the Trustee should not have added onto the Debtors' original "pot plan" the amounts necessary for payments of attorney's fees and the trustee's commission.
The Court feels constrained by the language of Official Form B22C and, thus, will not read more into the language of the set forth in the prescribed Official Form so as to provide for the deduction of debtor's attorneys fees. Accordingly, neither the Trustee's commission nor the Debtors' attorney's fees in this case should be deducted from the projected disposable income received by the Trustee during the applicable commitment period, as provided in the Debtors' modified plan.

• In re Warrington

Bankr. E.D.Pa. - 424 B.R. 186 - 0010-02-23 - 13 ,

Debtor was able to recover his repossessed car, but not get attorney's fees when creditor violated the automatic stay.

After defaulting on his car payment, debtor got a notice of repossession. The debtor was informed by creditor that he could only avoid repossession by making a lump sum payment. Within those 15 days, the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The court allowed the debtor to recover his car for his monthly payment amount (not the lump sum), and proof of insurance. The court reasoned that because the creditor could not sell the car under state law before the 15 days were up, the title remained with the debtor during that time, and the car had to be returned to the bankruptcy estate.

The court denied debtor's request for attorney's fees.

• In re Puffer

D.Mass. - 453 B.R. 14 - 2011-07-08 - ,

Chapter 13 plans that only pay the attorneys fees are not proposed in good faith.

• In re Sullivan

D.Mass - 454 B.R. 1 - 2011-06-15 - 13 ,

Fee request of $12,000 reduced to 3,584. Court found that 59 hours was an unreasonable amount of time, whereas 21 hours was a reasonable amount of time to commit to case @ rate of $176 per hour, even though lower court did not compute the math precisely this way.

• In re Aclin

Bankr. W.D. Tex. - No. 06-11730-CAG - 2010-03-11 - ,

Attorney was seeking fees for $12,801 for work that provided only a $7,200 benefit to the estate. The court held that this fee request resulted from bad billing judgment on the attorney's part, and only allowed him to receive the standard fee for the services that he had performed (in aggregate, the fee came to $1,175).

• Sternberg v. Johnston

9th Cir. 2010 - 595 F.3d 937 - 2010-02-08 - ,

As this opinion does not consider the civil contempt authority of the court, it does not limit the availability of contempt sanctions, including attorney's fees, for violation of the automatic stay, where otherwise appropriate.

• Sternberg v. Johnston

9th Cir. Ariz - 582 F.3d 1114 - 2009-10-22 - ,

Following dictionary definition of "actual damages" ('[a]n amount awarded ...to compensate for a proven injury or loss; damages that repay actual losses.' Blacks Law Dictionary, 416, 8th ed. 2004), the proven injury is the injury resulting from the stay violation itself. Once the violation has ended, any fees the debtor incurs after that point in pursuit of a damage award would not be to compensate for "actual damages" under Sec 362(k)(1).

• In re Carpenter

Bankr. S.D.Ohio - No. 08-54330 - 2009-09-26 - 13 ,

Attorney was allowed to collect some fees for doing administrative tasks (preparing bankruptcy petitions himself), but was not allowed to charge his full $200 hourly rate.

• In re D'Amico

Bankr. N.D.N.Y. - No. 05-19217 - 2009-09-14 - 7 ,

Court found that the attorney's $250 hourly rate was reasonable. However, the court reduced the fee by 20% because of deficiencies in the attorney's record keeping. The court explained that, "the reduction, in large part, is the result of the applicant's failure to provide sufficient information to justify the approval of the entire amount requested, and not a reflection on the quality of the services rendered. More specifically, the court was not provided with a clear picture of the individual tasks performed and the time it took to perform them."

• In re Bosco

Bankr. E.D.N.C. - No. 09-02715-8-JRL - 2009-08-25 - ,

Attorney had to disgorge $1,125 in fees. $1,000 of this amount was the amount over the $3000 "no look" amount allowed in that district (that is, the attorney charged $4,000 total). The court ordered the attorney to show cause for this excess fee, the attorney did not comply, and so the court required him to disgorge this amount. Additionally, the $125 amount was an undisclosed fee that the attorney had charged for a meeting he had with his clients.

At the client's request and the court's approval, the attorney withdrew from representation.

• Young v. Repine (In re Repine)

5th Cir. - 536 F.3d 512 - 2008-07-22 - ,

Attorney's fees may be awarded for stay violations by the debtor.

• In re Amato

Bankr.D.N.J. - 366 B.R. 348 - 2007-03-20 - 13 , Above

Debtors argue that the Trustee should not have added onto the Debtors' original "pot plan" the amounts necessary for payments of attorney's fees and the trustee's commission.
The Court feels constrained by the language of Official Form B22C and, thus, will not read more into the language of the set forth in the prescribed Official Form so as to provide for the deduction of debtor's attorneys fees. Accordingly, neither the Trustee's commission nor the Debtors' attorney's fees in this case should be deducted from the projected disposable income received by the Trustee during the applicable commitment period, as provided in the Debtors' modified plan.

• In re Warrington

Bankr. E.D.Pa. - 424 B.R. 186 - 0010-02-23 - 13 ,

Debtor was able to recover his repossessed car, but not get attorney's fees when creditor violated the automatic stay.

After defaulting on his car payment, debtor got a notice of repossession. The debtor was informed by creditor that he could only avoid repossession by making a lump sum payment. Within those 15 days, the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The court allowed the debtor to recover his car for his monthly payment amount (not the lump sum), and proof of insurance. The court reasoned that because the creditor could not sell the car under state law before the 15 days were up, the title remained with the debtor during that time, and the car had to be returned to the bankruptcy estate.

The court denied debtor's request for attorney's fees.

All Cases A to Z

• In re Aclin, No. 06-11730-CAG , (Bankr. W.D. Tex. ) 2010-03-11, #18090375558727153837
• In re Amato, 366 B.R. 348 , (Bankr.D.N.J. ) 2007-03-20, #13253233715338009869
• In re Bosco, No. 09-02715-8-JRL , (Bankr. E.D.N.C. ) 2009-08-25, #7141325179430419829
• In re Carpenter, No. 08-54330 , (Bankr. S.D.Ohio ) 2009-09-26, #8419583754250229164
• In re D'Amico, No. 05-19217 , (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. ) 2009-09-14, #7799188600315653218
• In re Puffer, 453 B.R. 14 , (D.Mass. ) 2011-07-08, #10379976179202113716
• In re Sullivan, 454 B.R. 1 , (D.Mass ) 2011-06-15, #4487605709436989443
• In re Warrington, 424 B.R. 186 , (Bankr. E.D.Pa. ) 0010-02-23, #8759715231590350285
• Sternberg v. Johnston, 582 F.3d 1114 , (9th Cir. Ariz ) 2009-10-22, #12137976616800065360
• Sternberg v. Johnston, 595 F.3d 937 , (9th Cir. 2010 ) 2010-02-08, #
• Young v. Repine (In re Repine), 536 F.3d 512 , (5th Cir. ) 2008-07-22, #9364256685196554290