Bush Library/Lawsuit

[SMU Football Blog]

Hale was irritated. The order isn't entered, but there may be something in the order that tries to keep this suit from being stopped again by a bankruptcy.

[jtstang]

Hale was irritated. The order isn't entered, but there may be something in the order that tries to keep this suit from being stopped again by a bankruptcy.

Every judge that has touched this file has ended up irritated. Do you really think that will stop him?

BTW, I've been in the courtroom when Jay Patterson was really irritated wtih a lawyer, and he scared the hell out of me. If Vodicka will take him on, he's pretty fearless when it comes to irritating judges.

[SMU Football Blog]

Yes, but using his equitable powers under 11 USC 105(a), Hale could conceivably craft an order that would permit the state court to continue regardless of any subsequent bankruptcy case. That probably skirts the boundaries of his power though.

[OC Mustang]

Hey Blog & Jt (otherwise carrying an avatar looking strangely similar to Jabberjaw from 1970s Saturday AM cartoons ),

Please tell me, if you were opposing counsel and had to guess on the shelf life of this guy's legal gymnastics (meaning, how long it will hang up the land), what would you say??

Thx.
JLH

[jtstang]

Hey Blog & Jt (otherwise carrying an avatar looking strangely similar to Jabberjaw from 1970s Saturday AM cartoons ),

Please tell me, if you were opposing counsel and had to guess on the shelf life of this guy's legal gymnastics (meaning, how long it will hang up the land), what would you say??

Thx.
JLH

Hard to say. There are Motions for Summary Judgment, which if ever heard, could conceivably end the case immediately if there are no disputed fact issues. Now that it is back in state court, I fully expect soome more shenanigans from the Plaintiffs when it is set for hearing, although blogster thinks the Bky Court order could avoid this. If I am right, it will prolong the case from resolution even more.

In the absence of a summary judgment, it does not appear to me that there is a pending trial setting, and it is not unusual in Dallas County to get an initial trial setting a year out.

[SMU Football Blog]

I read a transcript of a bankruptcy court hearing where Vodicka laid out his case. If that is all his case consists of, it is paper thin.

To my mind, it is a case for summary judgment. What facts are actually in dispute?

What is so unusual about this case is that you typically see the defendants stall and try and wait out the plaintiff who is moving ahead at full steam. Here, you have a plaintiff that is desperately trying to grind the process down to a halt and defendants that are desperately trying to move the case along. The only conclusion is all parties absolutely know Vodicka is going to lose on summary judgment.

For now, the bankruptcy BS is 100% over. Me and a colleague were debating whether Vodicka himself will file for bankruptcy. There is evidence he will. I originally thought he would, now I am not so sure. In addition to destroying his credit, he creates jurisdictional problems that I think SMU may try and take advantage of if he did. Plus, he knows that is, at best, a very short delay as at least two of the three Bankruptcy judges in Dallas hate him.

I can't tell you how crazy it is to remove a lawsuit to bankruptcy court after the stay has been lifted to allow it to proceed. The odds of that sticking are less than a million to one.

I think this guy has a couple more tricks, but he is now to the point where the judges want this to be over so scheduling will be done quickly.

[jtstang]

To my mind, it is a case for summary judgment. What facts are actually in dispute?

The only facts I know I read here and in the newspaper. Not sure I can evaluate based on that.

[OC Mustang]

Thanks, guys. Here's one (raises beer) to tomorrow evening.
Although "The Leach" is on their team tomorrow instead of SMU, perhaps SMU can pull something big out of its hat and make us proud.

Good and safe weekend. Off to sleep to get ready for my oldest's (9) Pop Warner game. He's SAM LB and Tight End for his team. Looking forward to it.

[SMU Football Blog]

I have read the bankruptcy court orders, the refiling of a bankruptcy case by Jetton will not stay the state court lawsuit pursuant to the terms of the Order. However, it appears that someone else could file for bankruptcy and stay the lawsuit.

THE COURT: The Court’s rulings will be as follows. Number one, on the motion to remand or abstain, the Court will grant that motion and will remand and abstain. Because similar actions may be taken in the future by other parties, I’ll re-cite my findings on this record.

Number one, there’s clear evidence of forum shopping, which this Court cannot condone.

Number two, it is apparent to me that the Debtor and one or more other parties are seeking to delay improperly the proceedings in state court.

Number three, the alleged problems with the state court which the Debtor says that he seeks to avoid by removing his lawsuit to state court should be addressed in that forum. This Court cannot be a substitute for a court in which one of the parties is unhappy.

Parenthetically, I would be remiss if I didn’t state on the record that I have known Judge Patterson for more than ten years, I’ve tried a jury trial in front of him, and I am surprised by the Debtor’s and Mr. Vodicka’s characterizations of him.

State law issues predominate in the lawsuit. In fact, they are exclusive. There are non-debtor parties. There has been a jury demand. In fact, one of the parties to the lawsuit has sought to remove the lawsuit from this Court based on the jury demand.

The matter was removed on the eve of the summary judgment hearing. To allow removal would be an uneconomical use of limited judicial resources. Therefore, the Court will remand and abstain.

On the dismissal motion, the case will be dismissed for cause. Such cause includes: (a) the Debtor’s unstable income; (b) the Debtor has not been paying his post-petition obliga-tions as they become due -- for example, his lease obligations; (c) the Debtor has not filed the required tax returns.

The dismissal will be without prejudice to refiling. How-ever, pursuant to Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code, in any subsequent bankruptcy case the automatic stay shall not apply to SMU or Peruna. This provision of the dismissal order is necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to give full effect to my prior ruling lifting the automatic stay.

Anything further from either side? We’ll be in recess. Thank you very much.

COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

[SMU Football Blog]

Very odd. The debtor/tenant and Vodicka had appealed the Bankruptcy Court orders but failed to designate items for the record or issues on appeal. Not that the appeals had any chance of success because they were based almost entirely on the judge's discretion. Also, the appeals didn't stop anything happening in state court. Still, odd that Vodicka would let those deadlines slide.

[jtstang]

Very odd. The debtor/tenant and Vodicka had appealed the Bankruptcy Court orders but failed to designate items for the record or issues on appeal. Not that the appeals had any chance of success because they were based almost entirely on the judge's discretion. Also, the appeals didn't stop anything happening in state court. Still, odd that Vodicka would let those deadlines slide.

I tell you I bet his next move is to file himself, right before SMU's next MSJ hearing.

[SMU Football Blog]

It is a very real possibility, but it poses its own unique problems.

[jtstang]

It is a very real possibility, but it poses its own unique problems.

Not the least of which must be that the bankruptcy judges hate him by now.

[Stallion]

I believe you have to file your notice of appeal timely within 10 days of the ruling but get something like 10 or 15 days to designate items on appeal.

[SMU Football Blog]

I believe you have to file your notice of appeal timely within 10 days of the ruling but get something like 10 or 15 days to designate items on appeal.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe I had a copy of the docket and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure in front of me when I wrote it? Not that I needed a copy of the Bankruptcy Rules because I can tell you off the top of my head it is 10 days to file a Statement of Issues on Appeal and Designation of Record from the date the Notice of Appeal is filed. Oh, and that is Rule 8006, if you want to look it up.