1:08-bk-00559•Michael Joseph Sindram
Texte intégral
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA In re MICHAEL JOSEPH SINDRAM, Debtor. ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08-00559 (Chapter 7) Not for Publication in West’s Bankruptcy Reporter MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S MOTION FILED MAY 4, 2009, OTHER THAN WITH RESPECT TO RELIEF THAT MAY ONLY BE GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT The debtor, Michael Joseph Sindram, has filed a document (Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 156) that includes: • a motion seeking reconsideration of the order of April 15, 2009 (DE No. 130) denying his motion (DE No. 121) to compel discovery from his condominium association; • an alternative Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Judgment of April 15, 2009 and Notice of Appeal (all relating to the order (DE No. 130) denying the motion to compel discovery; and • a renewed request for appointment of counsel in the litigation with the condominium association; and • a renewal of a demand for a jury trial. The document below is hereby signed. Signed: May 19, 2009. _____________________________ S. Martin Teel, Jr. United States Bankruptcy Judge Case 08-00559 Doc 171 Filed 05/19/09 Entered 05/19/09 15:58:43 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 4
The Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Judgment of April 15, 2009 and Notice of Appeal must be addressed by the District Court. As to the remaining relief requested I will deny that relief. I Sindram’s motion sets forth no basis to revisit the order denying discovery. Although the motion to compel was unopposed, a review of the answers given by the condominium association persuaded me that the condominium association has responded reasonably to the interrogatories, and that it would be inappropriate to compel further answers to the interrogatories. Sindram offers nothing new to alter my prior conclusion. That the motion to compel was unopposed did not preclude my reviewing Sindram’s motion to compel and to conclude that it sought relief that was unwarranted. II I have appointed counsel to represent Sindram with respect to his motion against PEPCO, and have asked that counsel to consider taking on representation of Sindram with respect to the condominium association litigation. The litigation against the condominium association does not facially present an appearance of sufficient merit to warrant the appointment of counsel, but appointed counsel as to the PEPCO litigation can interview Sindram regarding the condominium association litigation and 2 Case 08-00559 Doc 171 Filed 05/19/09 Entered 05/19/09 15:58:43 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 4
determine whether it is sufficiently meritorious to warrant the appointment of counsel. The renewed request will be denied without prejudice to the appointed counsel for the PEPCO litigation being appointed upon its and Sindram’s request to represent Sindram as to the condominium association litigation as well. III As to the renewed demand for a jury trial, the Memorandum Decision and Order Striking Debtor’s Renewal of Demand for Jury Trial in All Adversary Proceedings entered on May 4, 2009, addressing an earlier request of the same nature, sets forth why no jury trial is warranted, and the instant renewed demand will be denied for the same reasons. IV In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that, other than with respect to the the debtor’s Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Judgment of April 15, 2009 and Notice of Appeal that are part of the document, all of the relief sought in the document filed by the debtor on May 5, 2009, is DENIED (with the denial of the request for appointed counsel being without prejudice). [Signed and dated above.] 3 Case 08-00559 Doc 171 Filed 05/19/09 Entered 05/19/09 15:58:43 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 4
Copies to: Debtor; Chapter 7 Trustee; Office of United States Trustee; Craig A. Parker, Esq., 110 N. Washington Street, Ste. 500, Rockville, Maryland 20850; George R. Pitts, Esq. 4 O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Sindram (Michael Joseph) - Order Denying Mtn to reconsider Order Denying Mtn to Compel Discovery From Condo Assn.wpd Case 08-00559 Doc 171 Filed 05/19/09 Entered 05/19/09 15:58:43 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 4
Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.