You are here
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.
Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company V. Intergalectic Properties, Llc Et Al (4:11-ap-01312-EWH) 06/20/12
Holding: This matter comes before the Court on an Interpleader action initiated by Peerless Indenmity Insurance Company and on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Zions First National Bank and Joinder to Zions' Motion by Business Development Finance Corporation/Small Business Administration. The Court finds Granite State Ins. Co. v. Employers Mutual Ins. Co., 125 Ariz. 275, 609 P.2d 90 (App. 1980) is dispositive on the issues before the Court.
Minaxi G Patel (4:10-bk-20822-EWH) 06/15/12
Holding: Debtor filed a Chapter 11 Plan which proposed to bifurcate U.S. Bank's proof of claim secured by a lien on real property. U.S. Bank has not shown that it is entitled to relief under Civil Rule 60, and by operation of a separate order, the motion will be denied.
North Summit Landing, Inc. v. Shih Et Al (4:11-ap-01470-EWH) 06/15/12
Holding: Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants’ conduct constituted the use of a court process, therefore, they cannot demonstrate that Defendants committed the tort of abuse of process under Arizona law. Even if the Debtors’ conduct was a use of a court process, the evidence does not demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct met Arizona’s requirement that it be solely based on an improper motive. Accordingly, a judgment in favor of the Debtors will be entered this date.
Delbert C Hodge and Renee D Hodge (2:09-bk-26411-JMM) 06/13/12
Holding: Before the court is a controversy which requires interpretation of the Debtors' confirmed plan, and based upon such interpretation, the court must determine whether the Debtors defaulted thereunder, or if some other just remedy may be applicable.
Campos v. Beck (4:11-ap-00709-JMM) 06/11/12
Holding: Mr. Beck, at all times in the Campos' transactions, acted ultra vires to the Dealership, because it was not within the corporation's charter to defraud customers and convert their funds, and thus, he and his marital community are liable to Mr. Campos. The court FINDS AND CONCLUDES that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Mr. Campos has proven a non-dischargeable liability under §§ 523(a)(2) and (6).