Email Updates - Click here to subscribe for automatic notices when this page is updated.

The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2014 to current, listed by year and judge.

Holding: Harris immunity extends to Ellett Law Offices and Ellett’s conduct while it was Chapter 11 counsel for Debtor. The same public policy considerations favoring immunity for trustees and court appointed attorneys in a Chapter 7 case also favor such immunity in a Chapter 11 case.  As to Continental’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their equitable subordination claims and Continental’s Motion is denied.

Holding: Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Strojnik’s breaches of fiduciary duty to the estate and duty of candor to the Court, even if taken as true, are beyond the scope of special counsel’s required disclosure under Harris. To adopt Plaintiffs’ argued disclosure requirement would run contrary to the public policy rationale underlying Harris. The Court finds that Strojnik was sufficiently candid regarding its role as special counsel for the purpose of pursuing the Suit for the estate, that Strojnik acted within the scope of its appointment, that Debtor had notice, and that the Court approved its appointment. Strojnik is entitled to derived quasi-judicial immunity from Plaintiffs’ suit. The Complaint must be dismissed as to Strojnik.

Holding: Denying motion to avoid secured lien of Arizona Federal Credit Union.

Holding: Respondents’ defective Notice of Removal deprives them of standing. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the State Suit and must remand to State Court.

Holding: Order granting motion of Defendants to dismiss count VII, as Trustee failed to state a claim for conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers against Defendants because the Complaint fails to even allege the existence of an agreement between the Debtors and Defendants to commit a fraudulent transfer.

Holding: ATLU’s security interest in the three vehicles identified in its motion takes priority over Transwest’s garagemen’s liens.

Holding: Proceeds from sale of Debtors' exempt Arizona homestead remain exempt to the extent the proceeds were utilized to find and acquire a new home, to prepare it for occupancy, and to relocate there. However, proceeds that were not utilized by the Debtors within Arizona's 18-month reinvestment, must be turned over to the Trustee.

Holding: Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment on one of their § 523(a)(2)(A) claims for nondischargeability.

Holding: Denying both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions for reconsideration.

Holding: Plaintiffs failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are entitled to the relief requested in their Complaint for denial of the Debtors’ discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), (4) and (6).