Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:22 am
I don't know about anybody else, but I really appreciate how blog and a few others have provided an ongoing narration of this case. Thank you.
agreedEddie P wrote:I don't know about anybody else, but I really appreciate how blog and a few others have provided an ongoing narration of this case. Thank you.
No. I think it is because the reporter thinks Vodicka is doing the Lord's work by fighting the mean, awful Bush Library. To not mention that the guy was ordered to pay attorneys' fees is either grossly negligent or intentional.MrMustang1965 wrote:Because the words 'University of Texas' were not mentioned.SMU Football Blog wrote:How the DMN can leave that out is mind-boggling.
The insight into the legal system and how the proceedings work is interesting and, in this case, intriguing. You guys have been right on the money in your assessments and outcomes. Thanks for following the case and sharing your knowledge with ponyfans. Good job.Eddie P wrote:I don't know about anybody else, but I really appreciate how blog and a few others have provided an ongoing narration of this case. Thank you.
DALLAS, TEXAS - OCTOBER 5, 2006 - 9:00 A.M.
(Excerpt of proceedings begins at 12:18 p.m.)
THE COURT: The Court’s ruling will be as follows. This ruling applies to the motion to remand and abstain, as well as the motion for relief from the automatic stay.
The Court has taken into account the previous ruling of the Court and the proceedings, because both parties before the Court today were before the Court then, and Mr. Jetton testified that Mr. Vodicka assisted him in his removal the first time.
The matter before this Court has disturbed me since I heard the motion to lift stay for Judge Houser. The underlying lawsuit has been pending in state court for more than a year. It involves issues which arise wholly under state law. This Court would have no jurisdiction, absent the bankruptcy case.
The case is at the summary judgment stage in state court. The primary reasons given for the removal are that the Plaintiff or Debtor is being treated unfairly by the state court. The Plaintiff/Debtor has taken up these issues with the state court and has been unsuccessful to date. This Court does not serve as an appeals court in those matters, or a forum to second-guess the state court.
The Plaintiff/Debtor also believes that this Court could decide these matters more quickly than the state court. This position is somewhat curious to me, because in the earlier removal the Plaintiff/Debtor filed a motion with this Court to withdraw the case to the United States District Court for trial.
The matters in this lawsuit are not core matters. Therefore, if this Court tried the case in the year and one-half the Plaintiff estimates as the time when trial would occur, it would then necessarily be tried a second time before the United States District Court. In my most recent appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the time periods were about two years for the Circuit Court to consider a ruling of the District Court. Therefore, a trial by this Court or the District Court probably would not lead to finality any quicker than it would in state court.
There are also equitable considerations present this morning.
Number one, the Plaintiff chose to sue the Defendant in state court.
Number two, the Plaintiff/Debtor has been engaged in gamesmanship with his tenants by transferring interests and then coaching them to remove this case to this Court.
Number three, this is the second or third time around. At the motion to lift stay, I tried to advise the parties that the matter was better heard before the state court and that it would not be appropriate to bring before the federal court.
Number four, this matter has now been removed twice on the eve of hearings before the state court, which is, again, Debtor’s choice of forum.
Number five, this record, Mr. Vodicka’s undisputed testimony is that he wants this lawsuit removed to get it out of Judge Patterson’s court. This is not a proper reason for removal.
Number six, this removal is improper.
For these reasons, the motion to remand and abstain and the motion to lift stay will be granted.
Because this is the second time this matter was removed, and Mr. Vodicka has had a hand in both removals, and for the reasons stated on the record, I will award attorney’s fees and costs against the Debtor. SMU shall file with this Court a statement of fees and expenses within seven days. The Debtor may review and respond to such statement within seven more days, and the Court will rule on the pleadings.
I further direct SMU to file with the state court after remand and serve on all parties to the lawsuit a copy of this ruling and the order which will be entered by the Court based on this ruling. I want to place all the other parties to the lawsuit on notice that if they remove the action and it is remanded by this Court, I intend to impose fees and costs and sanctions on the removing party -- if I do remand it -- and on counsel.
What? That would be Michael Collins, but I don't understand why he is giving books to this guy.She also revealed that at one point during the case, Vodicka was able to obtain out-of-print Civil War history books from SMU legal counsel in exchange for court filings.