Arden Van Upp

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
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
ARDEN VAN UPP,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-31932 TEC
Chapter 11
MEMORANDUM RE FEE APPLICATION OF MITCHELL HADLER
The court held a hearing on March 29, 2010 regarding the
skeletal fee application filed on March 15, 2010 by Debtor’s former
counsel, Mitchell R. Hadler. 	Iain A. Macdonald appeared for
Debtor. 	Mr. Hadler did not appear.
Upon due consideration, and for the reasons stated below, the
court hereby denies the fee application, but does not determine at
this time whether any retainer already paid to Mr. Hadler should be
refunded. 	This memorandum shall constitute the court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law.
FACTS
On July 10, 2009, Debtor filed the above-captioned chapter 11
bankruptcy case. 	On August 1, 2009, Debtor filed an application to
employ Mr. Hadler as counsel for Debtor (the Application to
Employ). 	On October 2, 2009, the court signed an order granting
the Application to Employ.
Signed and Filed: March 30, 2010
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
April 01, 2010
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 09-31932 Doc# 344 Filed: 03/30/10 Entered: 04/01/10 10:48:33 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-
On March 1, 2010, the court signed an order setting: an
administrative claims bar date of March 15, 2010 (the Bar Date
Order); a deadline for Debtor to file objections to the
administrative claims of March 22, 2010; and a hearing on the fee
applications of March 29, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 	Mr. Hadler was served
with a copy of the Bar Date Order on March 1, 2010.
On March 15, 2010, Mr. Hadler filed a fee application (the Fee
Application), seeking $35,000 in fees and expenses for services
provided to Debtor from the petition date through September 22,
2009. 	The filed Fee Application is not supported by any additional
documents such as time records, but states that supporting
documents will be filed.
On March 22, 2010, Debtor filed an objection to the Fee
Application, arguing that the Fee Application should be denied in
its entirety because Debtor lacks sufficient time to properly
review the Fee Application and to frame objections thereto.
On March 29, 2010, Mr. Hadler filed a request for an
unspecified amount of additional time to supplement the Fee
Application. 	Mr. Hadler neither appeared at the hearing held on
the Fee Application, nor contacted the court to explain why he was
unavailable to appear.
DISCUSSION
The court may award reasonable compensation for actual,
necessary services rendered by an attorney employed as counsel for
Debtor. 	11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1)(A). 	In determining the amount of
reasonable compensation to be awarded to counsel for a debtor, the
court must consider the nature, extent, and value of such services,
taking into account all relevant factors, including the time spent
on such services and the rate charged. 	11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3).
Case: 09-31932 Doc# 344 Filed: 03/30/10 Entered: 04/01/10 10:48:33 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-
The court is unable to determine reasonable compensation to be
awarded to Mr. Hadler, because the Fee Application lacks any detail
or supporting documentation. 	In the four weeks since receiving
notice of the Bar Date, Mr. Hadler has neither filed supporting
documentation, nor stated a reason why he needs additional time to
do so. 	In addition, Mr. Hadler failed to appear at the hearing on
the Fee Application, and failed to provide any explanation why he
was unavailable to appear.
Because Mr. Hadler has not provided the court with any
documentation in support of his Fee Application, because Mr. Hadler
has not been diligent in prosecuting his Fee Application, and
because it is clear that Mr. Hadler did some post-petition work for
Debtor, the court determines that Mr. Hadler should not be allowed
any fees, but does not determine at this time whether any
prepetition retainer paid to him should be refunded.
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
Case: 09-31932 Doc# 344 Filed: 03/30/10 Entered: 04/01/10 10:48:33 Page 3 of
3