Putnam Leasing Company, Inc. v. Custodio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re 	) Bankruptcy Case
) No. 08-30809DM
CRAIG W. HOM and AILEEN R. 	)
CUSTODIO, 	) Chapter 7
)
Debtors. 	)
___________________________________)
PUTNAM LEASING COMPANY, INC., a 	) Adversary Proceeding
Connecticut Corporation, 	) No. 08-3085DM
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
AILEEN CUSTODIO aka AILEEN 	)
COSTODIO, aka AILEEN R. CUSTIDO, 	)
aka AILEEN CUSTODIA, aka AILEEN R. )
ZUNIGA, aka AILEEN C. ZUNIGA, aka 	)
AILEEN R. CUSTOOLO, aka AILEEN 	)
CUSTARIO aka CUSTUDIO AILEEN aka 	)
ZUNIGA AILEEN CUSTODIO, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
___________________________________)
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant Aileen R. Custodio has filed a motion for summary
judgment, or for summary adjudication. 	Plaintiff Putnam Leasing
Company, Inc., has failed to respond to the motion, now set for
hearing on January 16, 2009.
The court has reviewed the motion and finds that it is well
taken as to the first claim for relief. 	Defendant is entitled to
Signed and Filed: January 13, 2009
________________________________________
DENNIS MONTALI
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
January 14, 2009
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 08-03085 Doc# 18 Filed: 01/13/09 Entered: 01/14/09 13:50:25 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
summary judgment in her favor to the effect that any liability to
plaintiff is dischargeable.
As to the second claim for relief, the motion is well taken
as to the Murchison Property, and defendant is entitled to summary
adjudication that her conduct regarding the disposition of that
property and the reporting of it have been adequately explained
and nothing that she did or did not do can constitute grounds to
deny her discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727.
The remainder of the second claim for relief pertains to
unspecified transfer(s), concealment, etc., of property; a knowing
and fraudulent false oath; and withholding of books and records,
etc. 	(See complaint, ¶¶ 15a, b & c. 	Since defendant’s motion did
not include any facts to rebut these allegations, it must be
denied except to the extent that they pertain to the Murchison
Property.
The court cannot determine whether plaintiff intends to
prosecute this adversary proceeding any further. 	To that end, it
will vacate the trial date, not set for February 23, 2009, at 9:30
A.M. 	Instead, the court will hold a status conference at that
time and date; prior to that date counsel are directed to meet and
confer regarding any remaining issues to be tried. 	If plaintiff
elects not to proceed, a statement to that effect should be filed,
in which case counsel for defendant should submit and order and
judgment consistent with this memorandum. 	The motion will be
taken off calendar.
**END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION**
Case: 08-03085 Doc# 18 Filed: 01/13/09 Entered: 01/14/09 13:50:25 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
COURT SERVICE LIST
Allan Herzlich, Esq.
Law Offices of Allan Herzlich
15760 Ventura Blvd. #2024
Encino, CA 91436-3095
Case: 08-03085 Doc# 18 Filed: 01/13/09 Entered: 01/14/09 13:50:25 Page 3 of 3