Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Primestock/Seltronics

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
In Re: 	*
NETCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 	* 	Case No. 	03-32325PM
* 	Chapter 	11
*
Debtor. 	*
************************************* 	*
NETCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 	* 	Adv. Nos. 	04-1225 through
* 	04-1236 and
Plaintiff, 	* 	04-1311
vs. 	*
ANIXTER, et al. 	*
*
Defendants. 	*
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On May 4, 2004 (and on May 11, 2004, in adversary proceeding No. 04-1311), this Court
issued an Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed upon Netcom
Technologies, Inc., the Debtor-in-Possession, and its attorney of record, Linda D. Regenhardt, on
account of the failure of the Debtor-in-Possession to serve process in thirteen (13) adversary
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure. Counsel failed to make service and requested that the Court reissue the summonses
in each of these adversary proceedings.
Counsel’s response states that this was a “clerical error” on behalf of her support staff.
However, counsel misses the point. This misfeasance caused the case administrator to make
This Opinion is being reprocessed to
correct the caption to include the
appropriate adversary proceeding
numbers.
Date signed June 08, 2004
Case 04-01231 Doc 17 Filed 06/09/04 Page 1 of 4

1 On May 26, 2004, this Court conducted hearings with respect to its Orders. Adversary
proceeding number 04-1311 was not called by the Court despite an Order to Show Cause being
entered and a notice of hearing generated. That Order is included in this Memorandum.
more than two dozen unnecessary entries. At a time when the staff of federal courts is being cut
drastically because of budget limitations, it behooves counsel not to be the cause of needless
labor for the overworked case administrators.
In concluding, the Court notes that at the time of the hearing, some answers had been
filed, and counsel reports certain cases have been settled. 1 With respect to those adversaries that
have not filed a response, the Court makes no finding with respect to the adequacy of the service
of process by the method selected. A chart of all of the affected adversary proceedings is
attached.
cc:
Linda D. Regenhardt, Esq., Gary & Goodman, 8500 Leesburg Pike, #7000, Vienna VA 22182
Netcom Technologies, Inc., 7423 Lindbergh Drive, Gaithersburg, Md 20879
United States Trustee, 6305 Ivy Lane, #600, Greenbelt MD 20770
End of Memorandum
(See Attachment)
Case 04-01231 Doc 17 Filed 06/09/04 Page 2 of 4

Adversary
Proceeding No.
Parties 	Nature of Action 	Answer 	Rule 26(f)
Report
04-1225 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Anixter 	Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
No. 	No.
04-1226 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Citizens Bank 	Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
Yes. 	No.
04-1227 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. GE CDF 	Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
No. 	No.
04-1228 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. McClure
Electric
Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
No. 	No.
04-1229 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Norfolk Wire &
Electronics
Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
No. 	No.
04-1230 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Pioneer Electric
Supply
Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
Yes. 	No.
04-1231 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v.
Primestock/Seltronics
Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
No. 	No.
04-1232 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Rexel Datacom 	Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
Yes. 	No.
04-1233 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Rexel Inc 	Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
Yes. 	No.
04-1234 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Tech Staff of
Tampa
Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
No. 	No.
Case 04-01231 Doc 17 Filed 06/09/04 Page 3 of 4

04-1235 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Valley
Lighting, Inc.
----------
Valley Lighting, Inc. v. Coakley & Williams
Construction (third-party complaint)
Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer and defendant’s
third-party complaint against Coakley
& Williams the Continental Ins. Co.
Yes - Valley
Lighting, Inc.
Motion to Dismiss
filed by third-party
defendants.
Yes.
*Pre-trial
conducted on
June 3, 2004.
04-1236 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Watkins,
Meegan, Drury & Co.
Complaint to avoid and recover a
preferential transfer.
Yes. 	No.
04-1311 	Netcom Technologies, Inc. v. Valley
Lighting, Inc.
----------
Valley Lighting, Inc. v. Netcom
Technologies, Inc. (counterclaim)
----------
Valley Lighting, Inc. v. Coakley & Williams
Construction (third-party complaint)
Complaint for turnover of estate
property; counterclaim; and third-party
complaint against Coakley & Williams
and the Continental Ins. Co.
Yes - Valley
Lighting, Inc.
Motion to Dismiss
filed by third-party
defendants.
Yes.
*Pre-trial
conducted on
June 3, 2004.
End of Attachment
Case 04-01231 Doc 17 Filed 06/09/04 Page 4 of 4