Paula Marie Bruce

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
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
PAULA MARIE BRUCE, 	No. 11-10822
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
Finding of Contempt and Memorandum on Motion to Set Aside Order
_________________
Debtor Paula Bruce filed a Chapter 11 petition on March 7, 2011, and the case has been
floundering ever since. Bruce is represented by an unpaid attorney working pro bono who freely
admits that she knows nothing about Chapter 11 and is not competent to represent a Chapter 11 debtor
in possession. This attorney has represented to the court that prior to bankruptcy Bruce paid
$19,666.00 to the Corvus Law Group to represent her, but the firm failed to file on her behalf and
failed to return the funds.
On March 24, 2011, Bruce’s counsel filed a motion to compel the Corvus Law Group to return
Bruce’s money. The matter came on for hearing on April 15, 2011. The Corvus Group completely
ignored the motion and did not appear at the hearing. The court could have issued an order at that
point, but given the urgency of the matter - Bruce has no other funds available to hire proper counsel -
the court issued its own order on that date, requiring the Corvus Law Group and some of its members
to file a detailed statement of fees and expenses by May 2 and to appear before the court on May 6,
2011. The order stated that “Failure to comply may result in a complete forfeiture of all fees and an
1
Entered on Docket
May 23, 2011
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 11-10822 Doc# 45 Filed: 05/22/11 Entered: 05/23/11 11:37:26 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
order that you return all fees heretofore received by you to the debtor.”
The Corvus Law Group did not file the statement of fees and expenses, nor did they appear at
the hearing. The court accordingly ordered them to refund all of the money to Bruce, together with
$250.00 per day for each day until compliance. 	The court also suspended their electronic filing
privileges and their right to file new bankruptcy cases in this district.
After the court entered its order, it learned that the Corvus Law Group had attempted to appear
telephonically the morning of the hearing, even though clearly posted court rules require advance
arrangements. On May 9, 2011, a full week after it was due and three days after the hearing, the
Corvus Law Group filed the required statement of fees and expenses.
The Corvus Law Group has now moved the court for relief from the May 6 order. They argue
“excusable neglect,” a calendaring error. It’s principal, Ryan West, says in just a sentence or two that
he calendared the hearing for the wrong week.
The motion does not establish excusable neglect. It does not describe the Corvus Law Group
calendaring system, who was responsible for calendaring the hearing and what went wrong. It does
not discuss why Bruce’s original motion heard on April 15 was ignored. Most tellingly, it does not
explain why the Corvus Law Group knew about the hearing on May 6 and made a frantic last-minute
attempt to appear telephonically just before the hearing. If the matter had truly been mis-calendared,
the Corvus Law Group would not have realized it until it received the court’s order. The Corvus Law
Group has not established that its neglect was excusable, and its motion will accordingly be denied.
The urgencies of the situation do not allow the court it indulge the Corvus Law Group’s
disregard for this court and its orders. Bruce is in desperate need of legal representation immediately;
her case will certainly be dismissed or converted in the next few days if she is unable to retain
competent counsel. The funds she paid to the Corvus Law Group represent her only possible hope for
reorganization. The court finds the Corvus Law Group, Ryan R. West and Quyn Nhu Trinh in
contempt and will accordingly keep its order of May 6 in effect until there is full compliance.
A separate order will be entered.
2
Case: 11-10822 Doc# 45 Filed: 05/22/11 Entered: 05/23/11 11:37:26 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
Dated: May 22, 2011
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
3
Case: 11-10822 Doc# 45 Filed: 05/22/11 Entered: 05/23/11 11:37:26 Page 3 of 3