2016 Judge Meisel - Opinions

Judge Stacey L. Meisel -- Opinions signed in 2016

 

 


 

In re: Arcola -  Case 14-1010 Final Opinion on 2nd Motion to Dismiss, 9/27/2016

Steven P. Kartzman vs. Arcola Sales & Service Corp, Adversary Proceeding No. 14-01010 (SLM). This matter concerns Defendant Arcola's second Motion to Dismiss. On February 24, 2014, Defendant Arcola filed a Motion to Dismiss or Remand, arguing, among other things, that there was no pending civil action at the time of the removal of the state court case to the Bankruptcy Court and that the Notice of Removal itself was defective. The Bankruptcy Court denied Defendant Arcola's first Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant appealed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of its Motion to Dismiss and the District Court denied, with prejudice, Defendant Arcola's Motion for Leave to Appeal concerning its first Motion to Dismiss.
Just over six months later, Defendant Arcola filed its second Motion to Dismiss.  Defendant alleges the second Motion to Dismiss is different from the first Motion to Dismiss because over a year passed and the Trustee did not modify an Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1), which modification was necessary for the case to proceed. After hearing oral arguments and considering the pleadings submitted by the parties on this matter, this Court ultimately denied Defendant Arcola's second Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set forth in the attached Opinion.

 


 

 

In re: Singh -  Case 15-02085 final, 10/5/2016

Before this Court are two contested matters: (i) a Motion for Entry of Judgment and Vacating of Settlement Terms and (ii) Cross-Motion for an Order Enforcing Settlement and Imposing Sanctions.  At their core, the disputes concern the enforceability of a Consent Order that the parties agreed to earlier this year.  After hearing oral arguments and considering the pleadings submitted by the parties on this matter, this Court vacates the July 8, 2016 Consent Order under Rule 60(b)(1) and New Jersey law, and denies the motion for sanctions for the reasons set forth in the attached Opinion.
 


 

 

In re: Roper and Twardowsky, LLC (Case No 15-32878) , 11/8/2016

Before this Court are two contested motions brought by the Chapter 7 Trustee pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019: (i) Motion to Approve Settlement with Gorman & Gorman LLC and (ii) Motion to Approve Settlement with Goldman Davis & Gutfleish, P.C. In reaching its decision, the Court evaluated the proposed settlements under the Third Circuit’s In re Martin factors and determined that New Jersey’s attorney’s charging lien law does not hinder the immediate payment to the settling parties. The Court approves the two settlements and grants the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motions.