Alliance Financial Capital Holdings, 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
27
28
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION
TO REQUEST REMAND 	-1-
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
ALLIANCE FINANCIAL CAPITAL
HOLDINGS, INC.,
Alleged Debtor.
________________________________
RICHARD L. HATFIELD,
Alleged Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 07-30030 TEC 7
Chapter 7
(Involuntary)
Case No. 07-30031 TEC 7
Chapter 7
(Involuntary)
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION TO REQUEST REMAND
This court abstained in the above-entitled involuntary chapter
11 cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305. 	Movant Jennifer Moore
(Moore) appealed that decision. 	The court dismissed the
involuntary petitions at the request of the petitioning creditors,
upon the rationale that the underlying disputes could best be
resolved through judicially supervised settlement discussions in a
pending state-court action. 	The alleged Debtors and the
Signed and Filed: January 31, 2008
________________________________________
THOMAS E. CARLSON
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
February 01, 2008
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 07-30030 Doc# 49 Filed: 01/31/08 Entered: 02/01/08 08:49:46 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
MEMORANDUM RE MOTION
TO REQUEST REMAND 	-2-
petitioning creditors reached a settlement, but the alleged Debtors
apparently were unable to obtain financing to fund the payments
required under the settlement agreement. 	Moore, whom this court
previously found to be a creditor of Hatfield, but not a creditor
of Alliance, argues that the dismissal orders should now be set
aside because of the alleged Debtors’ inability to fund the
settlement agreement. 	Because the dismissal orders are on appeal,
Moore asks this court to request that the appellate court remand
the matter so that such relief can be granted.
This court declines to request remand. 	The involuntary
petitions were dismissed for all purposes and without condition.
This court did so to encourage the alleged Debtors and the
petitioning creditors to reach a consensual resolution through the
pending state-court action. 	Moore has not shown any newly
discovered evidence relevant to whether dismissal was appropriate
at the time it was ordered. 	Although a court may set aside a
judgment solely on the basis of a subsequent change of
circumstances, such relief should be granted sparingly and to avoid
unfairness from the prospective effect of the ruling. 	11 Wright,
Miller & Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. 2d § 2863 at 336 (2d ed. 1999);
United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 (1932). 	Moore is not
seeking to avoid the prospective effect in the usual sense of that
term, as when a party seeks to have an injunction involved. 	If
bankruptcy is now appropriate, the prior dismissal does not bar a
new involuntary petition.
**END OF MEMORANDUM**
Case: 07-30030 Doc# 49 Filed: 01/31/08 Entered: 02/01/08 08:49:46 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
Court Service List
Michael D. Cooper, Esq.
Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean
1111 Broadway, 24th Floor
P.O. Box 2047
Oakland, CA 94604-2047
Iain A. Macdonald, Esq.
Macdonald and Associates
221 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Chris D. Kuhner, Esq.
Kornfield, Paul & Nyberg
1999 Harrison Street
Suite 2675
Oakland, CA 94612
James H. Seymour, Esq.
Law Offices of James H. Seymour
706 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Case: 07-30030 Doc# 49 Filed: 01/31/08 Entered: 02/01/08 08:49:46 Page 3 of 3