Qmect, Inc.

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 	No. 04-41044 TK
Chapter 7
QMECT, INC.,
Debtor.
___________________________/
MEMORANDUM RE TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On October 11, 2007, John Kendall, the chapter 7 trustee, (the
“Trustee”) 	filed 	a 	motion 	for 	reconsideration 	of 	the 	Court’s 	order
of 	July 	14, 	2006 	(the 	“Relief 	From 	Stay 	Order”). 	The 	Relief 	From
Stay Order was affirmed by the United States District Court for the
Northern 	District 	of 	California 	and 	is 	currently 	on 	appeal 	to 	the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 	The first brief is due December 31,
2007.
Accordingly, the Trustee’s motion recognizes that at present the
Court has no jurisdiction to reconsider the Relief From Stay Order.
Instead, 	it 	simply 	asks 	the 	Court 	to 	indicate 	whether 	it 	would 	be
willing 	to 	entertain 	a 	motion 	for 	reconsideration. 	If 	so, 	the
Trustee 	will 	then 	ask 	the 	Court 	of 	Appeals 	to 	remand 	the 	matter 	to
the Court for reconsideration.
Signed: October 23, 2007
________________________________________
LESLIE TCHAIKOVSKY
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
October 24, 2007
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 04-41044 Doc# 750 Filed: 10/23/07 Entered: 10/24/07 13:53:35 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
2
It 	is 	the 	Court’s 	procedure 	to 	review 	motions 	for
reconsideration 	for 	merit 	before 	permitting 	them 	to 	be 	set 	for
hearing. 	Although 	acknowledging 	that 	no 	opposition 	brief 	is
appropriate 	at 	this 	time, 	the 	adverse 	parties, 	Burlingame 	Capital
Partners 	II, 	L.P. 	and 	Electrochem 	Funding, 	LLC 	(collectively
“Burlingame”), 	have 	filed 	a 	procedural 	opposition 	to 	the 	motion.
The 	Court 	has 	reviewed 	the 	motion 	and 	the 	procedural 	opposition.
However, 	it 	is 	not 	yet 	prepared 	to 	determine 	whether 	the 	motion 	is
procedurally 	improper 	or 	whether 	it 	has 	sufficient 	merit 	to 	be 	set
for hearing.
The motion for reconsideration recognizes that the issues raised
by 	this 	motion 	are 	similar 	to 	those 	raised 	by 	a 	motion 	for
reconsideration 	of 	an 	adversary 	proceeding 	judgment 	filed 	by
Burlingame. 	Burlingame’s 	motion 	is 	set 	for 	hearing 	on 	November 	8,
2007. 	The Court will defer making a decision regarding the propriety
and substantiality of the Trustee’s motion for reconsideration until
after that hearing.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case: 04-41044 Doc# 750 Filed: 10/23/07 Entered: 10/24/07 13:53:35 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
3
COURT SERVICE LIST
Reidun Stromsheim
Stromsheim & Associates
201 California St., Ste. 350
San Francisco, CA 94111
William w. Huckins
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 12 th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4074
Case: 04-41044 Doc# 750 Filed: 10/23/07 Entered: 10/24/07 13:53:35 Page 3 of
3