Capitol Hill Group

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
CAPITOL HILL GROUP,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 02-00359
(Chapter 11) Not for
Publication in West’s
Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE
MOTION TO DELAY CLOSING OF THE CASE
Patrick Potter has filed a Motion to Delay Closing of the
Case, seeking to delay the closing of the case for at least six
months. 	However, the Final Decree entered in 2004 closed the
case in general, and the court has disposed of all matters that
were allowed to be pursued before it despite the general closing
of the case. 	Accordingly, Potter’s motion will be denied.
I
The Final Decree entered on January 21, 2004, directed that
the case is closed, but directed that the closing did not bar the
filing of fee applications and the continued litigation of the
objection to the Newmark claim. 	For that reason, the clerk did
not send the files to the Archives.
The decision below is signed as a decision of
the court.
Signed: June 19, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 02-00359 Doc 967 Filed 06/20/07 Entered 06/20/07 09:08:29 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
The matters that were allowed to be pursued despite the
general closing of the case have been concluded. 	All fee
applications have been resolved. 	The objection to the Newmark
claim entailed an appeal which was resolved in late 2006. 	To be
absolutely certain that the Newmark litigation had no life left
to it, the court recently directed Newmark to show cause why the
case ought not be closed (meaning why the clerk ought not treat
as concluded the limited matters for which the court continued to
permit ongoing filings and litigation despite the closing of the
case in general). 	Newmark did not respond to the order to show
cause, and the court views that as a concession by Newmark that
the Newmark litigation is concluded.
II
Potter and his law firm acted as the initial law firm
representing the debtor in this case (with Potter acting as the
debtor’s initial lead counsel). 	After they withdrew from such
representation, they pursued prolonged litigation regarding fee
amounts owed the law firm for such representation and fees owed
for being forced to pursue payment of those amounts. 	Potter
conducted much of the litigation on behalf of the law firm.
Potter’s motion alleges in pertinent part:
5. 	Upon very recent information and belief, CHG
is contemplating further litigation with the
undersigned regarding the [parties’ involvement in the
case].
6. 	Furthermore, the undersigned believes that CHG
is waiting until the Court enters the order closing
Case 02-00359 Doc 967 Filed 06/20/07 Entered 06/20/07 09:08:29 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
these proceeds [sic], on some theory that this Court
would be stripped of jurisdiction to address the res
judicata and fee-shifting issues that the undersigned
will certainly raise.
7. 	However, this case has been open since
February 2002. 	No harm will come from postponing the
closing of the case for another six months (at least).
Keeping the case open will avoid the necessity of the
undersigned moving to re-open the case to effectuate a
removal and transfer to this Court of any litigation
commenced against the undersigned.
The litigation that Potter envisions as possibly eventuating does
not come within the limited matters that the Final Decree
permitted to be pursued in this court despite the general closing
of the case. 	Nor do the issues of res judicata and fee-shifting
that Potter anticipates he would raise with respect to such
possible litigation.
III
Accordingly, this case is already closed with respect to the
pursuit of the litigation Potter fears may ensue or the removal
of any such litigation to this court. 	The case would have to be
reopened to entertain such matters, and, currently, there is no
matter pending to be removed to this court. 	In any event, Potter
has not filed a motion to reopen the case. 	Without any reopened
case, there is no closing to be delayed. 	In any event, even if
the case were still open, the court generally would not keep a
case open simply because of an indefinite prospect of forthcoming
litigation.
However, attorney’s fees ought not be awarded to the debtor
Case 02-00359 Doc 967 Filed 06/20/07 Entered 06/20/07 09:08:29 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:\Judge Temp Docs\Capitol Hill Group Memorandum Decision re Motion to Close Case.wpd
for opposing the Motion. 	The recent order to show cause directed
to Newmark erroneously suggested that the court was treating the
case as still open, and Potter’s request to delay the closing of
the case (if it were, indeed, still open) was not frivolous.
IV
An order follows denying the Motion to Delay Closing the
Case, and denying the debtor’s request for attorney’s fees.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Patrick Potter, Esq.; Donald R. Hartman, Esq.;
Daniel M. Litt, Esq.; Office of United States Trustee.
Case 02-00359 Doc 967 Filed 06/20/07 Entered 06/20/07 09:08:29 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4